SYED NIZAM ALI Vs. C.S.BHAVANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH the petitions are listed for taking steps for issue of notice to respondents, in four of the petitions and in other petitions, the respondents have already been served and the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to take steps, I am of the opinion that these petitions do not merit consideration before this Court. The reason for my conclusion is that in respect of payment that had been ordered against the petitioner herein and when execution proceedings were taken out, the petitioner had filed the applications before the Karnataka State Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission on 11.01.2011 seeking two months time to pay the amount ordered by way of extension of time. The applications have been subsequently dismissed by the order dated 16.11.2011. Even though these petitions are pending from 05.12.2011 before this Court, no steps have been taken to settle the matter.

(2.) FIRST and foremost, the extension time as sought in the applications itself had been expired long back before the forum itself and even after sufficient time has been elapsed during the pendency of these petitions, the petitioner not made efforts to pay the amount in entirety and conclude the matter. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CICILY KALLARACKAL ­vs - VEHICLE FACTORY disposed of 06.08.2012 [S.L.P (C) Nos. 24228 -24229/2012 (C.C.Nos. 12891 -12892/2012)] has cautioned the High Court not to entertain the petitions arising out of Consumer Protection Act. Hence, these petitions stand disposed of.