JUDGMENT 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the order dated 02.05.2012 passed in Consumer Complaint No.13 of 2012 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Trichirappalli. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The epitome and the long and the short of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition would run thus: (i) The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would echo the cri de coeur and heart burns of his client to the effect that one Chelladurai -the third respondent herein, filed a Consumer Complaint No.13 of 2012 as against the respondents 1 and 2 - the officials of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, suppressing material facts and also the earlier order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 04.11.2004 passed in W.A.Nos.235 and 240 of 1997, the operative portion of which, would run thus: "8. In the light of what is stated above, particularly in view of the positive directions of this Court in 1985 by Justice Mohan in WPMP.No.7658 of 1985 in WP.No.4767 of 1985 and in 1995 by Justice Y. Venkatachalam in WP.No.4767 of 1985 and also of the fact that various notices have been issued to the encroachers time and again, considering the length of time consumed, we are of the view that no further indulgence need be shown to the encroachers. It is also relevant to refer the information furnished by the learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation that a Scheme has been framed for widening the road. In such an event, undoubtedly, these encroachers have to be removed. Taking note of all these aspects, we direct the Commissioner, Tiruchirappalli Municipal Corporation to inform all the encroachers in Allithurai Road inclusive of T.S.No.32 to 35 about the order of this Court by beat of tom-tom directing them to vacate the encroached portion within 30 days from the said date. In case of noncompliance of the direction by the encroachers within the time stipulated, the Commissioner, Corporation of Tiruchirappalli Municipality is directed to evict those persons by taking assistance of Police and Revenue Authorities. If any such request is made by the Commissioner, Tiruchirappalli Municipality, the Commissioner of Police, Trichirappalli and the District Collector, Trichirappalli are directed to render assistance for compliance of the above order. Both the writ appeals are disposed of on the above terms. If any such request is made by the Commissioner, Tiruchirappalli Municipality, the Commissioner of Police, Trichirappalli and the District Collector, Trichirappalli are directed to render assistance for compliance of the above order. Both the writ appeals are disposed of on the above terms. No costs." Consequent upon that, the encroachers who were there in the nearby place were resisting for removal of encroachments. Whereupon, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board was directed to cut off the electricity supply and it was also carried out. While so, after some time, holus-bolus suppressing the material facts, the third respondent herein filed a complaint as though the officials of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board were refusing to give electricity supply. Whereupon the Consumer Forum simply issued a direction for resuming the electricity supply. The revision petitioner herein is a third party to that proceeding before the Consumer Forum and also a person who purchased the property of one Ganapathy, who traced his title from one of the parties to the above said writ appeal. Accordingly, he would pray for setting aside the order of the Consumer Forum passed in the Consumer Complaint No.13 of 2012, dated 02.05.2012. (ii) Whereas the learned Counsel for the third respondent would submit that the revision petitioner/third party is not at all in any way connected with the earlier proceedings as well as the present proceedings and the third respondent herein and others are Burma repatriates who are there in that vicinity and the District Collector has permitted them to stay there and till they are legally evicted, they are entitled to be there by enjoying the amenities. 4. Be that as it may, now, this Court is concerned with the fact as to whether under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, necessarily cognizance of this matter should be taken and orders passed? 5. Trite, the proposition of law is that if effective remedy is available under the law for the revision petitioner, then he has to resort to it. The order passed by the Consumer Forum is an appealable one before the State Commission and in such a case; it is open for the revision petitioner to approach the appropriate statutory appellate authority, instead straightaway filing this Civil Revision Petition. 6. The order passed by the Consumer Forum is an appealable one before the State Commission and in such a case; it is open for the revision petitioner to approach the appropriate statutory appellate authority, instead straightaway filing this Civil Revision Petition. 6. I would like to refer to the following decisions of this Court: (i) Chairman and Managing Director, Indian Overseas Bank, Madras - 600 002 v. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madras - 1, reported in 2002 (1) CTC 15 . (ii) R.Jaivel, the President Mettupatti Multi Purpose Worker's Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd., Namakkal v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Superintending Engineer, PWD, Vellore reported in 2006 (2) CTC 709 . (iii) Air Canada v. Arpee Garments reported in AIR 2010 Mad 201 . (iv) ICICI Prudential Life Insurance v. M.G.Balasubramaniyan reported in 2012 (2) MWN (Civil) 745. 7. Not to put too fine a point on it, in view of the ratiocination adhered to by me supra in discussing the aforesaid point, I would like to dismiss this Civil Revision Petition giving liberty to the revision petitioner to approach the State Commission concerned under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 8. On balance, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed. No costs. 9. On hearing the order pronounced, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would make an extempore submission that the time taken for prosecuting this revision might be ordered to be excluded for computing the limitation period for filing the appeal before the State Commission concerned. I could see considerable force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner. Accordingly, the time taken for prosecuting this Civil Revision Petition shall stand excluded for computing the period for filing appeal before the State Commission.