Judgment :- 1. Inveighing the order the warrant of attachment dated 22.2.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Perambalur in E.A.No.6 of 2011 in C.C.No.47 of 2008 and the entire proceedings in E.A.No.6 of 2011, this civil revision petition is filed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, who would echo thecri de couer of his client that holes-boles attachment order was passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Perambalur, so as to attach the properties of the revision petitioner, who was not at all added eo-nominee a party in C.C.No.47 of 2008, even though he was added eo-nominee a respondent in the E.A.No.6 of 2011. The revision petitioner also was not heard and thereby the District Forum violated the principle of audialteram partem. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this is a singularly singular case attracting the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. At the outset itself, I would like observe that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain this revision in view of the earlier decisions of this court reported in 1. 2002(1) CTC 15 (Chairman and Managing Director, Indian Overseas Bank, Madras 600 002 and two others vs. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madras1 and another) and 2. 2006(2) CTC 709 (R.Jaivel, the President Mettupatti Multi Purpose Worker's Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd., Namakkal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by the Superintending Engineer, PWD, Vellore) and certain excerpts from those decisions would run thus: 1. 2002(1) CTC 15 (Chairman and Managing Director, Indian Overseas Bank, Madras 600 002 and two others vs. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madras1 and another) "8. As far as the first submission is concerned, it is settled law that before approaching this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is the bounden duty of a person to exhaust all alternate remedies. At the same time, it is not as if this court has no power to entertain the writ petition when there are alternate remedies. before entertaining such writ petition, courts will see whether alternate remedy available is effective and further whether the alternate remedy will be a long drawn process and whether the circumstances of the case required an immediate redressal to the affected person. before entertaining such writ petition, courts will see whether alternate remedy available is effective and further whether the alternate remedy will be a long drawn process and whether the circumstances of the case required an immediate redressal to the affected person. In cases where there are clear violation of Principles of Natural Justice or when authorities act totally without jurisdiction, court will entertain writ petition and adjudicate the matter. But at the same time, it has to be pointed out that the Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will not take up the exercise of examining the disputed question of fact and render factual finding. Normally once the writ petition is admitted, at the time of final disposal the court will not drive the parties to the appellate forum unless there are disputed questions of fact and when all required materials are available before court." 2. 2006(2) CTC 709 (R.Jaivel, the President Mettupatti Multi Purpose Worker's Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd., Namakkal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by the Superintending Engineer, PWD, Vellore) "16. Arguing upon maintainability of this revision petition, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner again relied upon G.Rajamani v Petchimuthu and others, 2003(1) CTC 300 : 2003(2) LW 363 and submitted that inspite of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. In those cases, the question as to the maintainability of a revision under Article 227 de hors the provisions made in Section 27 about the availability of appellate jurisdiction has not been dealt with; whereas the same was dealt with in a later case M/s.Max worth Homes Ltd. v. V.Raman 2005(2) CTC 258 : 2005(3) LW 455 , in the following line: "The present order which is under challenge in the above revision came to be passed was only the said circumstances under Section 27 of the Act. As such it cannot be suggested that no appeal shall lie as against the said order. As such it cannot be suggested that no appeal shall lie as against the said order. Even otherwise, Section 21 (b) of the Act confers wide powers to the National Commission to call for records and pass appropriate orders in respect of any matter pending or orders passed by the State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the light of such wide powers conferred upon the National Commission and in the light of the present facts on hand, I am not inclined to exercise powers under Article 227 of the Constitution." (iii) Certain excerpts from the one other decision of this Court reported in AIR 2010 MADRAS 201 – M/S.AIR CANADA V. M/S.ARPEE GARMENTS & ANOTHER, would run thus: "9. . . . . . .Section 21(b) of the Act confers wide powers to the National Commission to call for records and pass appropriate orders in respect of any matter pending or orders passed by the State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the light of such wide powers conferred upon the National Commission and in the light of the present facts on hand, I am not inclined to exercise powers under Article 227 of the Constitution." A mere perusal of those excerpts including the whole judgments would amply make the point clear that the Consumer Protection Act itself provides for filing revision or appeal, as the case may be, before the National forum under the said Act and get redressed of the grievances by a party concerned; while so, invocation of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the aggrieved person as against the orders of the State Consumer Redressal Commission, would not lie. 12. 12. In respect of the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision cited by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner supra, I would like to point out that in the said decision it has not been pointed out that despite the availability of the revisional forum for the aggrieved party concerned, to get redressal, he can approach the High Court invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India." 5. A mere perusal of those excerpts including the whole judgments would amply make the point clear that the Consumer Protection Act itself provides for filing revision or appeal, as the case may be, before the specially constituted forum concerned under the said Act and get redressed of the grievances by the aggrieved party; while so, the invocation of Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the aggrieved person as against the orders of the District/State Consumer Redressal Commission, would not be tenable. 6. The power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is no doubt a Constitutional power conferred on the High Court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction and that could be exercised, if at all there is no effective alternative remedy. 7. It is glaringly clear that if at all the revision petitioner is affected by the order in view of it having been not given the opportunity to air the grievance, then there are hierarchy of higher for a under the Consumer Protection Act. The nature of allegation made in the revision petition is not in any manner could be taken as one which would automatically attract the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 by-passing the higher for a contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act. 8. In this case, the impugned order is not one that was grossly injustice or beyond the parameters of the jurisdiction of the Forum. Within the scope and parameters of its jurisdiction the forum passed the order, which could be challenged only before the higher forum under the said Act. 9. Accordingly, I am of the considered view that this court cannot interfere in this matter by entertaining this revision and accordingly, the revision is dismissed. No costs. Office is directed to return the relevant papers to the learned counsel for the petitioner immediately. 10. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum under the Consumer Protection Act, subject to law of limitation. No costs. Office is directed to return the relevant papers to the learned counsel for the petitioner immediately. 10. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum under the Consumer Protection Act, subject to law of limitation. The period between the date of filing of this revision petition i.e. 2.5.2012 and the date of this order shall stand excluded for filing the necessary petition before the forum concerned under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.