IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2011 / 7TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2703 of 2011(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- HDFC BANK LTD REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER LEGAL SUMIT P.PRASAD, MANAGER LEGAL, SL PLAZA HDFC BANK, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJESH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM ERNAKULAM, PULLEPPADY, KALOOR, KOCHI-17. 2. M.ABDUL JALEEL, S/O MUHAMMED KUNJU, KANJIRAMPARAMBIL, MANNAM P.O., N.PARAVUR. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 2703 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 27th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ext.P3 is an order passed by the 1st respondent on 25/6/2010. Pursuant to that, Ext.P4 execution petition was filed by the 2nd respondent, the complainant. On receipt of notice on Ext.P4 execution petition, petitioner filed Exts.P5 and P6, objection and adjournment application. In these applications, the contention raised was that the legal department was examining the petitioner and that an appeal has been preferred. However, the 1st respondent appears to have issued non bailable warrant to the petitioner and it is at that stage the writ petition has been filed. 2. In the writ petition, petitioner complains that the delay in filing the appeal and their inability to obtain orders from the Appellate Commission has occurred on account of the fact that the petitioner received copy of Ext.P3 order from the 1st respondent only recently. I am not impressed by this argument for the reason that such a contention has not been raised by the petitioner either in Ext.P5 or in Ext.P6. Therefore for that reason WPC No. 2703/11 :2 : and also taking note of the fact that Ext.P3 order was passed by the 1st respondent as early as on 25/6/2010, I am inclined to think that if the petitioner had taken genuine efforts, petitioner could have atleast sought orders from the State Commission, which it did not do. In that view of the matter, I do not think that the non bailable warrant issued by the 1st respondent needs interference by this Court. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp