IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2010 / 26TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37042 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUMIT KALRA, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.LATE SRI.C.P.KALRA, SURGICAL & SCIENTIFIC EQUIPMENTS, 36/1935 A, METELDA BUILDING, KALOOR-KADAVANTHRA ROAD, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SAMEER BABU.K.M, `ABHILASH', P.O.TRIKKATIRI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.K.RAMESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 37042 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 16th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the opposite party in C.C.No.46/2006 pending before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam. Before the CDRF the petitioner raised a preliminary point as to the jurisdiction of the Forum to entertain the complaint. The Forum, by Ext.P4 order, held that it has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Th petitioner filed a revision before the State Commission, which was dismissed by Ext.P5 order. The petitioner challenges the same. I am not inclined to consider this writ petition on merits, insofar as, according to me, piece-meal adjudication by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has to be discouraged. The Forum has been constituted for the purpose of expeditious disposal of complaints from consumers. If the Forum is to adjudicate complaints piece-meal, then that primary goal of the Forum cannot be achieved. Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to raise the question of jurisdiction also while challenging the final order to be passed by the CDRF, this writ petition is closed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 2