IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2011 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 7413 of 2011(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ DARLY ROCKY, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O V.A.ROCKY, VADAKKETHALA HOUSE, VALARKAVU, NADATHARA, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.D.DILEEP RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE CONSUMER DISTPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THRISSUR, PIN- 680 003. 2. THE JOHNSON ENTERPRISES, CHALAKUDY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, V.I.VACKACHAN, VALIKODATH THAKKOLKARAN, PUTHANCHIRA, MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR DT. R1 BY SENIOR GOVT PLEADER SRI.P. NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.7413 OF 2011 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF MARCH, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the course pursued by the first respondent, Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur, whereby the prayer made by the petitioner is refused to be acted upon as borne by Ext.P6 endorsement stated as made on Ext.P5 complaint on 4.2.2011 observing that since the cause of action projected by the petitioner pertains to the years, 1981, 1982 and 1983, the complaint is barred by limitation. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, but for the above endorsement, no order has been passed by the first respondent; by virtue of which petitioner is virtually prevented from availing the statutory remedy by way of appeal. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. Considering the fact that Ext.P5 complaint has been chosen to be not acted upon, in view of Ext.P6 endorsement observing that it is barred by limitation, Ext.P6 could very much be treated as an order passed by the first respondent and if the petitioner is wpc 7413/2011 2 aggrieved, it is open to the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy by way of appeal. Subject to the above observation, interference is declined in the writ petition and the same is dismissed accordingly without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to pursue the alternate remedy as mentioned above. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE lgk