IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2008 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 35589 of 2007(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.R.VISWANATHAN, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.PATTALI RAMAN, P.O.KUNDALIYOOR, THRISSUR - DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. P.M.ABDUL RAHIMAN, WALKERS SHOE MART, TEMPLE ROAD, THRIPRAYAR JUNCTION, THRISSUR - DISTRICT. 2. THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, VAZHUTHAKKAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.I.SAGEER - R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.N.SUDHADEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.35589/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF OP. NO.33/2001 DT. 14.3.2001. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN OP. NO.28256/2002. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 30.6.2006 OP. NO.28256/2002. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE POSTEL ORDER OF THE ORDER RECEIVED BY PETITIONER. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL NO.1022/2001. EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DT. 5.5.07. EXT.P7:- COPY OF THE PETITION DT. 5.5.07 IN AP. 1022/01. EXT.P8:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 25.7.07 IN RP. NO.75/06 IN IA. 469/08. RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss S.SIRI JAGAN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No. 35589 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th day of June, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the appellant in A.P.No.1022/2001, before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram. That appeal was dismissed for default by Ext.P5 judgment. Against the same, the petitioner filed Ext.P7 application supported by Ext.P6 affidavit seeking restoration of the appeal. The same was rejected by Ext.P8 order holding that the application is barred by limitation. The petitioner's contention is that the application is not barred by limitation. According to the petitioner, he received the order of the Commission dismissing the appeal only on 17.4.2007 and he filed the I.A. to restore the appeal on 5.5.07, which is well within the time limit stipulated for filing restoration application. Petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: i) Issue a writ or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for entire records leading to Ext.P8 and quash the same. ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ, order or direction to the second respondent to allow Ext.P7 and restore the appeal on file. W.P.(C).No. 35589 OF 2007 2 iii) To stay all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P8. 2. although the learned counsel for the 1st respondent would submit that the petitioner had been ex-parte throughout the proceedings, even before the Forum, he could not contradict the averment of the petitioner that the restoration application was filed within the time stipulated. That being so, Ext.P8 order is erroneous. Accordingly, Ext.P8 is quashed and the 2nd respondent is directed to consider the application for restoration on merits and pass orders thereon expeditiously. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE bkn/-