IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2011 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 31493 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- KARNATAKA BANK LTD., P.B.NO.599, MAHAVIRA CIRCLE KANKANADI, MANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.R.AZAD BABU RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- GOVINDAN NAIR, S/O. LATE RAMAN NAIR, PROPRIETOR, MARTHANDAM AUTO SPARES, KALLAN ROAD, ALAPPUZHA-II. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 31493 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 18th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the respondent in CC No.157/2010 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alleppey. The complaint was filed by the respondent herein praying for permission to recover an amount of `50,000/- with future interest from the petitioner and seeking to restrain the Bank from making the account of the complainant Non Performing Account. Notice was issued, petitioner entered appearance and filed its objections. Immediately thereafter, this writ petition was filed seeking to quash the complaint and the interlocutory application filed along with the complaint. 2. In my view, this writ petition, if not anything else, is premature. If a complaint has been wrongly entertained, it is always open to the petitioner/respondent to appear before the CDRF, raise its objections and challenge any adverse order that may be passed by the CDRF. That stage has not arrived and even without waiting for that, the writ petition is filed. WPC No. 31493/10 :2 : Therefore, at this stage the writ petition is misconceived and it is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp