1. Inveighing the order dated 05.05.2011 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai, in C.M.P.Sr.No.563/2011 in C.M.P.No.1509 of 2010 in F.A.No.483 of 2007h in C.O.P.No.300 of 2003, this civil revision petition is focussed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. A thumbnail sketch of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision, at the number stage, itself would run thus:

(i) The revision petitioner here filed the application C.M.P.No.1509 of 2010 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai, to get restored the appeal F.A.No.483 of 2007, which was dismissed for default. The said application was allowed subject to payment of Rs.1000/- as cost and the order is extracted hereunder:

"Heard. This petition aims to restore the appeal in F.A.483/2007. In view of the default committed by the appellant, the case came to be dismissed for default on 23.11.2010. In order to give an opportunity, we are inclined to restore the appeal on terms. Objection over ruled since the respondent is not willing to receive the cost. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is allowed on condition that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.1,000/- as cost to the legal aid account of the State Commission, by way of Demand Draft, drawn in favour of the Registrar, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai, on or before 14.3.2011, failing which, the petition shall stand dismissed."

(ii) However, within the time, it appears, the order was not complied with. Whereupon, application was filed to get the time extended. But the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on seeing that the earlier order was not complied with, passed the order thus:

"1. Heard. The petitioner having failed before the District Forum in O.P.No.300/2003, filed an appeal before this Commission in F.A.No.483/2007, which was not diligently prosecuted, despite sufficient time given and finally when the case was posted for appearance and disposal also, resulting dismissal of the appeal on 23.11.2010.

2. Thereafter, CMP.No.1509 of 2010 was filed to restore the appeal, which was allowed on condition to pay a sum of Rs.1000/-, as cost, to legal aid account, on or before 14.3.2011, which was called on 15.3.2011, to ascertain the compliance of conditional order. On that date also, there was no representation, conditional order not complied with, resulting dismissal of that petition. Thereafter, this petition was filed to restore that petition, seeking extension of time.

3. By the conduct of the petitioner, who is the complainant, a case filed in the year 2003, has not come to finality, that too by the deficiency and negligence committed by the complainant. Therefore, we find no reason to extend the time, for compliance of the order dt.24.1.2011, which workout itself, and this petition is also not maintainable, after the disposal of the previous CMP.No.1509of 2010, since this commission has no jurisdiction, to review the said order.

4. Hence the petition is liable to be rejected, taking into consideration the slackness on the part of the complainant, that too, considering the purpose of the Act, which contemplates, early disposal.

5. In the result, the petition is rejected."

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this revision has been focussed on various grounds.

5. Instead of approaching the National Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, the petitioner invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in refusing to extent the time to comply with the order was to be set aside, as according to him, such an order is having no legs to stand. He would also cite the following decisions:

“(i) Unreported judgement of this Court dated 11.8.2010 in M/S.VIJAY CONSTRUCTIONS V. 1.Mrs.P.R.Leena Mary 2.U.Gandhi

(ii) (2006) MLJ 729 – OWRI AMMAL V. MURUGAN