Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    CHACKO JOY v. SATHEESAN

    STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

    THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

    Revision Petition No. RP/36/2021 ( Date of Filing : 21 Dec 2021 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 09/12/2021 in Case No. CC/230/2021 of District Alappuzha)

    1. CHACKO JOY

    KOCHUPARAMBIL HOUSE PALACE WARD OF

    ALAPPUZHA MUNCIPALITY IRON BRIDGE P O

    ALAPPUZHA ...........Appellant(s) Versus

    1. SATHEESAN

    SAROBHAVAN POONTHOPPUAVALOOKKUNNU P O

    ALAPPUZHA ...........Respondent(s)

    BEFORE:

    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.K.SURENDRA MOHAN PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH JUDICIAL MEMBER

    SRI.RANJIT.R MEMBER

    SMT.BEENAKUMARI.A MEMBER

    SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R MEMBER

    PRESENT:

    Dated : 23 Dec 2021 Final Order / Judgement

    KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

    VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

    REVISION PETITION No. 36/2021

    ORDER DATED: 23.12.2021

    (Against the Order in I.A. 402/2021 in C.C. 230/21 of CDRC, Alappuzha)

    PRESENT:

    HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT

    SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER

    SRI.RANJIT. R : MEMBER

    SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER

    SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER

    1

    REVISION PETITIONER:

    Chacko Joy, Kochu Parambil (H), Palace Ward of Alappuzha Municipality, Iron Bridge P.O., Alappuzha.

    (By Adv. R. Suja Madhav)

    Vs.

    RESPONDENT:

    Satheesan, Saro Bhavan, Poonthoppu, Avalookkunnu P.O., Alappuzha.

    ORDER

    HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT

    Heard the counsel for the revision petitioner. This revision is directed against an order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Alappuzha dismissing a petition filed by the revision petitioner to set aside an order declaring him ex-parte. According to the revision petitioner, he had entered appearance in the case and had filed objections to the injunction petition that was pending. In the said petition an order of injunction was also granted. Thereafter he was set ex-parte for the reason that no version was filed, taking into account the fact that the statutory time limit for filing version had expired. It is not in dispute that, subsequently the complaint was finally heard and orders have been reserved by the District Commission on 09/12/2021. Since the proceedings before the District Commission have culminated with the final hearing of the matter this revision petition is not maintainable. What remains to be done by the District Commission now is only to pronounce final orders in the case.

    In the above circumstances, we find that this revision is not maintainable. The same is accordingly dismissed.

    JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT

    T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL

    2

    MEMBER

    RANJIT. R : MEMBER

    BEENA KUMARY. A :

    MEMBER

    K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN :

    MEMBER

    jb

    [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.K.SURENDRA MOHAN]

    PRESIDENT

    [HON'BLE MR. SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH]

    JUDICIAL MEMBER

    [ SRI.RANJIT.R]

    MEMBER

    [ SMT.BEENAKUMARI.A]

    MEMBER

    [ SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R]

    MEMBER

    3

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    CHACKO JOY v. SATHEESAN
    (Dec 23, 2021)