High Court of Madras
Case Law Search
A. Subbu Ram v. Tmt. P. Aruna - Civil Revision Petition No.746 of 2002 and C.R.P. No.747 of 2002  RD-TN 346 (10 June 2002)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. KANAGARAJ
Civil Revision Petition No.746 of 2002 and C.R.P. No.747 of 2002 and C.R.P. No. 748 of 2002
CMP.Nos.7422 to 7424 of 2002
A. Subbu Ram Petitioner in all CRPs Versus
1. Tmt. P. Aruna Respondent in CRP.No.746/2002 2. Minor S. Rajaram
through his guardian
R. Sundaresan Sakthi Sugars Ltd.,
Cuttack District, Orissa State.
Respondent in CRP.No.747/2002 3. Thiru Palanivel Respondent in CRP.No.748/2002 4. Tmt. P. Aruna Respondent in CRP.No.748/2002 CRP.No.746 of 2002: Revision against the order dated 30.10.2001 passed in CMP.NO.40/2001 in E.P.No.7/2001 in C.O.P.No.53/2000 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dindigul. CRP.No.747 of 2002: Revision against the order dated 30.10.2001 passed in CMP.No.46/2001 in E.P.No.8/2001 in C.O.P.54/2000 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dindigul. Prayer in CRP.No.748 of 2002: Revision against the order dated 30.1 0.2001 passed in CMP.NO.48/2001 in E.P.No.11/2001 in C.O.P.No.58/2000 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dindigul. For Petitioner : M/s. P. Rajamanickam
On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner in all the above Civil Revision Petitions, it comes to be known that the petitioner is the partner of M/s. Muthuvel Associates, Dindigul who were carrying on business of lending and borrowing money from public and the respondents herein deposited certain amounts with the petitioner and his firm. But, when firm of the petitioner did not repay either the deposited amount or the maturity amount, the respondents herein have filed complaints before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Dindigul, in C.O.P.Nos.53,54 and 58 of 2000 and also obtained decrees in their favour. Thereafter, all the respondents herein have filed Execution petitions respectively in E.P.Nos.7,8 and 11 of 2001 before the said Forum.
2. It further comes to be known that even after the receipt of the notices in the execution proceedings, the petitioner did not bother to appear before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, the said Forum by its order dated 02.05.2001 has passed an exparte order thereby issuing non-bailable warrants under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as against the petitioner.
3. At this state, when the petitioner through his counsel applied for a copy of the order passed in E.P.No.7 of 2001 in C.O.P.No.53 of 20 00, whereby the petitioner arrest was ordered, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal forum, Dindigul has declined to pass orders in the said application since the petitioner is deliberately absconding from appearing before the Court or submitting himself to the Court. It is only against this order dated 30.10.2001, the petitioner has come forward to file the above Civil Revision Petitions.
4. The moment the petitioner filed an application before the lower Court seeking the copy of the order dated 02.05.2001, which came up before this Court praying to set aside the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, it denotes the knowledge of the petitioner regarding the order passed on 02.05.2001. However, in spite of the non-bailable warrant having been issued against him, the petitioner did not bother to take any step to set aside the said order or to recall the warrant or to submit himself before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum for the proceeding to attain to its logical conclusion hearing both parties. It is nothing short of an act perpetrated on the part of the petitioner deliberately evading the legal process and therefore the petitioner does not become entitled to challenge the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Instead he must file proper applications before the forum itself which has got all the powers to either set aside the order or recall the warrant or even to pass any order pertaining to the subject matter and hence the above civil revision petitions are disposed of with the following directions ; (i) The petitioner shall surrender before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum within seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and file an application before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum for recalling the warrant and to file an application to set aside the exparte order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum ;
(ii) If the petitioner is interested to contest the matter or else in complying with the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, on his applications, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is hereby directed to supply the copy of the order passed in E.P.No.7/2001 dated 02.05.2001 without which the petitioner may not be able to appear before the Forum especially when there is no rule that under such circumstances only surrendering before the forum, he must seek for a copy which is his legal right ;
(iii) In such event, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum shall deal with the applications as it has to be done in the normal course without adopting repressive measures so as to continue the rest of the proceedings.
5. The Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of in the above manner even at the admission stage, since no other remedy relevant for consideration is involved. Consequently, CMP.Nos.7422 to 7424 of 2002 are closed. Index:yes 10.06.2002 Web: Yes
CRP.Nos.746 to 748 of 2002
CMP.Nos.7422 to 7424 of 2002
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.