A. Subbu Ram vs Smt. P. Aruna, S. Rajaram through his guardian R. Sundaresan Sakthi Sugars Ltd. and Smt. P. Aruna

V. Kanagaraj, J.—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.

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 u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as against the petitioner.

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 2000,

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.

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 petition