IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 30519 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. MUTUAL AID BANKERS, (OWNED BY P.K.ROCKEV MEMORIAL TRUST), HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT CHITTOOR ROAD, KOCHI-682035 REPRESENTED BY ITS FOREMAN, SRI.P.L.NAVIS. 2. P.K.ROCKEY MEMORIAL TRUST, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE, SRI.P.L.NAVIS HAVING ITS OFFICE AT MUTUAL AID BANKERS, CHITTOOR ROAD, KOCHI-682035. 3. P.L.NAVIS, FOREMAN, MUTUAL AID BANKERS, CHITTOOR ROAD, KOCHI-682035. BY ADV. SRI.ROY CHACKO RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SMT.P.U.SAHEEDA BIBI, W/O.P.AHAMED NIZAM SHAH, 9/438, R.C.ROAD SOUTH, KARUVELIPADY, KOCHI-682005. 2. P.AHAMED NIZAM SHAH, 9/438, R.C.ROAD SOUTH, KARUVELIPADY, KOCHI-682005. ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R1 & 2 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R1 & 2 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R1 & 2 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R1 & 2 SRI.P.GOPINATH FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:- EXHIBIT P1 : Order dtd.2/9/2003 in O.P.No.230/2003 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam. EXHIBIT P2 : Memorandum of Appeal filed by the petitioners before the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram. EXHIBIT P2(a): Application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioners before the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram. EXHIBIT P2(b): Application for stay filed by the petitioners before the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R2(a): Judgment in S.T.No.353/2007 dtd.3/3/2009 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court IV, Kochi. EXHIBIT R2(b): Objection filed by the petitioner in E.P.No.48/2004 in O.P.No.230/2003 before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam dtd.28/5/09. True copy P.A. to Judge T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.30519 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the warrant issued by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam in O.P.No.230 of 2003 of which the order is produced as Ext.P1. The complaint was filed by the respondents herein. According to the petitioners no notice was received in the proceedings and only when the warrant was issued the petitioners came to know about the complaint and passing of the order. The order Ext.P1 shows that the parties did not appear in spite of receipt of the notice. Same is strongly disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The petitioners have filed appeal as per Ext.P2 along with petition to condone delay and to stay the execution before the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as per Ext.P2, P2(a) and P2(b). This Court on 28/10/2009 granted an interim order as prayed for which was being extended from time to time. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the allegations raised in the appeal that they had no knowledge about the pendency of the complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is not correct. It is also pointed out that there are no bonafides in the averments also. W.P.(C)No.30519 of 2009 2 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Ext.P2 to P2(b) have been posted for return of the notice from the State Commission on 6/5/2010. Since the matter is pending before the State Commission the petitioner will move necessary application before the State Consumer Redressal Commission for hearing of the I.A. for condoning the delay and the stay petition. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that they have not received any notice so far from the State Commission. For enabling the parties to appear before the State Consumer Redressal Commission and to seek any interim order, the interim order passed by this Court will continue till 31/5/2010. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he would make necessary applications before the State Consumer Redressal Commission in that matter. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE skj