VENUGOPAL Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MATHILAKAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Questioning correctness of the course adopted by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur (in short the 'Forum') in a proceeding under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') these petitions have been filed.

(2.) Finding no response to the notice to K. P. Vijayan, petitioner in O. P. 2284 of 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'judgment debtor'), the Forum directed issuance of warrant to arrest him which in fact was executed and he was taken into custody. Pursuant to interim directions given by this Court in a petition filed by his relative Venugopal, petitioner in O. P. No. 32834 of 1999, he has been released on bail with certain conditions.

(3.) Genesis of the dispute is the order dated 22.10.1999. While the judgment debtor maintains that he was present and had moved for an adjournment through counsel before the Forum N. A. Prabhakaran, (hereinafter referred to as 'decree holder') disputes this statement. This factual dispute is really not of much significance in the background of the legal question raised by the judgment debtor. According to him, the directions given by the Forum for issuance of warrant of arrest to secure for the custody of the judgment debtor is violative of the protection given under S.27 of the Act. It is submitted that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'the Code') had to be followed and they have not been followed. Learned counsel appearing for decree holder submitted that the course adopted by the judgment debtor is nothing but a sheer abuse of the process of Court and the true intent of S.27 gets diluted by resort to such dilatory methods.