IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2009 / 2ND MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 402 of 2009(W) ------------------------ PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. K. VENUGOPAL, ARACKAL SREE GOKULAM, THIRUVATHUKAL, KOTTAYAM, REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SUSEELA VENUGOPAL, RESIDING AT 39/2539, PUTHENVEEDU, KALATHIL VELAYUDHAN NAIR ROAD, OFF DIWAN'S ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 016. 2. SUSEELA, W/O. K. VENUGOPAL, ARACKAL SREE GOKULAM, THIRUVATHUKAL, KOTTAYAM, RESIDING AT 39/2539, PUTHENVEEDU, KALATHIL VELAYUDHAN NAIR ROAD, OFF DIWAN'S ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 016. BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP SRI.SADER E.REAZ RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. M/S. C.S. COMPANY ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS, T.B. ROAD, KOTTAYAM. 2. M/S. C.S. COMPANY (CONSTRUCTION) LTD., T.B ROAD, KOTTAYAM. 3. S. JAGANNATHAN @ RAGHU, PALLIVILAKATH, T.B. ROAD, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, SISUVIHAR LANDE, VAZHUTHACAD, SASTHAMAGALAM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAURAM-10 5. THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM. WPC : 402/09 6. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR) KOTTAYAM. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS R4 TO R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C).No. 402 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioners submit that they had filed OP No.1055/98 before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kottayam (5th respondent) against respondents 1 to 3. It is stated that, by Ext.P1 his complaint was allowed and that in appeals filed by both parties, the 4th respondent remanded the matter to the 5th respondent for fresh consideration. 2. It is stated that on remand, after hearing both sides, Ext.P2 order was passed by the 5th respondent in 2005. Petitioners state that thereupon, they had filed an application for getting Ext.P2 executed and that, at that stage, a writ petition was filed, WP(C) No. 33521/08 by one of the respondents in Ext.P2. The writ petition was dismissed vide Ext.P3 judgment. 3. According to the petitioners, subsequently, they received Ext.P4, a notice from the 3rd respondent on a revision filed against Ext.P2. It is stated that on their behalf appearance was entered, but, however, the revision was dismissed as not-pressed on 24.12.08. 4. It is stated that on the same day, respondents 1 to 3 W.P.C.No. 402 OF 2009 -:2:- obtained Ext.P5 interim order of stay in an appeal filed by them in 2005 and which was not moved until then. Consequent on Ext.P5, the 4th respondent issued Ext.P6 order recalling the Revenue Recovery order, which was passed on the execution petition filed by the petitioners for recovering the amount due under Ext.P2. 5. At that stage, this writ petition was filed contending that on the strength of Exts.P5 and P6, respondents 1 to 3 are attempting to get the attachment over the car belonging to the 3rd respondent lifted and that too, without any safeguards. It is taking note of this apprehension that this Court passed an interim order on 05.01.09, when this writ petition came up for admission. 6. Today, I have heard the counsel for the petitioners and also counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3. It is the admitted position that appeal, FA No.357/08, filed against Ext.P2 order passed by 5th respondent is pending consideration of the 4th respondent. It is in that appeal that Ext.P5 order was passed. Ext.P5 is an ex-parte order and therefore, if at all the petitioners are aggrieved by such order or the consequent action taken in pursuance to the same, the remedy available to the petitioners is to move the 4th respondent itself. W.P.C.No. 402 OF 2009 -:3:- 7. In order to take care of the grievance of the petitioners that in the meanwhile, the attachment is likely to be lifted and that too without any condition safeguarding their interest, I issue the following directions: (1) That attachment of the car belonging to the 3rd respondent effected in pursuance to the Revenue Recovery order in enforcement of Ext.P2 order, will be maintained for four weeks from today. (2) In the meanwhile, it will be open to the petitioners to move the 4th respondent, seeking variation of Ext.P5 or for imposition of any additional conditions or even for the disposal of the appeal itself. 8. Needless to say that, if the petitioner moves the 4th respondent as above, the Commission shall consider the same expeditiously, untrammelled by any observation made in this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) ttb W.P.C.No. 402 OF 2009 -:4:-