JUDGMENT

Petitioners are respondents 1 and 2 in Ext.P1 complaint filed by the first and second respondents before the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram. Petitioners have filed written statement against Ext.P1 complaint. Second petitioner was examined as t he witness of opposite parties. Petitioners filed Ext.P3 document schedule and Ext.P4 additional witness schedule to adduce further evidence. According to petitioners, the Commission did not permit the petitioners to adduce evidence and rather closed the evidence and posted for judgment. These are background facts persuaded the petitioners to approach this Court seeking appropriate reliefs.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the documents on record and pleadings put forth.

3. I am not prima facie impressed or satisfied to entertain this writ petition, since the remedy available to the petitioners is to make a proper application before the first respondent to reopen the evidence, secure orders and adduce evidence. Petitioners have a case that, petitioners does not have undertaken such an exercise before the first respondent.

4. Therefore, if the petitioners make any applicatio