IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 8480 of 2010(H) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- ALJO JOSEPH, PROPRIETOR, ORMA MARBLE PALACE, MANJOOR, NOW RESIDING AT UPASANA HOUSE, CHERACHI, OLLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.SOJAN JAMES RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRASSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), THRISSUR. 4. SRI.P.V. CHANDRAN, PUNCHAYIL HOUSE, MEVELLOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.C. No. 8480 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 15th day of March 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J U D G M E N T The petitioners are the opposite parties in the complaint before the C D R F, Kottayam, wherein Ext.P1 Award was passed in favour of the 4th respondent herein, which is sought to be executed by filing Ext.P2 execution petition pending consideration before the 2nd respondent. However, being aggrieved of Ext.P1 Award, Ext.P5 appeal has been filed along with Ext.P6 application for condoning the delay in filing the same. It is said that urgent notice was ordered in the delay petition and that the matter is posted on 5.4.2010. It is in the meanwhile, that coercive proceedings have been pursued at the instance of the 4th respondent, as borne by Exts.P3 and P4 notices issued under Section 7 and 34 of the RR Act respectively. The prayer of the petitioner is limited only to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the interlocutory application and pass appropriate orders for condoning the delay in filing the appeal also and to intercept the coercive W.P.CNo.8480 of 2010 2 steps. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. Considering the very nature and extent of relief sought for and proposed to be given, this Court finds it not necessary to issue any notice to the 4th respondent for the time being and to keep the matter pending before this Court. 4. In the above circumstances, the second respondent is directed to consider Ext.P6 application for condoning the delay in filing Ext.P5 appeal and also in the petition for interim stay, if any, in accordance with law, as early as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. In order to pursue such exercise, it is made clear that, all further recovery proceedings pursuant to Exts.P4 and P5 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE nl