IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2009 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16641 of 2009(A) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. R.M. SUDARSHAN, S/O. KARUNAKARAN, PREMIER HOUSE, P.O. PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE. 2. R.M. AJEENA, W/O. R.M. SUDHARSHAN, D/O. MUHAMMED, DHARMAPALAN, KANNUR, KALLIKAVU, MANNUR.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.P.R.VENKETESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. GADADHARAN, S/O. BANUPRAKASH, 3/604, MANIPURAM NADAKAVU, KOZHIKODE. 2. R.M. SYLESH, S/O. KARUNAKARAN, PREMIER HOUSE, P.O. PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), KOZHIKODE. R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.16641 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT 1.The petitioners who were respondents 1 and 3 in a proceedings before the CDRF suffered an ex parte order. The third party who contested the matter was the brother of the first opposite party. The petitioners filed application to set aside that ex parte order. That was rejected by the CDRF. The petitioners appealed to the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against the main matter and the refusal to set aside the ex parte decision. That appeal was barred by limitation. The application to condone delay and appeal have been dismissed holding that the delay of more than 1400 days has not been appropriately explained and that there is no reason to assume that the petitioners were not aware of the proceedings. The fact that the brother of the first petitioner herein had been contesting the matter, though in his personal capacity, was noticed by the State Commission. It also did not find any ground to interfere on the merits of the WPC.16641/09 Page numbers matter, having regard to the fact that the petitioners herein had not shown, even in the appeal memorandum, any ground challenging the findings of the CDRF. The order of the CDRF included the finding that the opposite parties in the proceedings before it had received an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- by way of an FD in relation to a commercial transaction. The CDRF had concluded that there is deficiency in service in not returning the said amount with accrued interest. 2.With the aforesaid materials, there is no jurisdictional error or legal infirmity, on the basis of which, the writ court can interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution. Hence, preserving the rights of the petitioners to move the National Commission if so advised, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.20/6.