The High Court dismissed the civil revision petition challenging an order not to entertain the suit on jurisdiction unless evidence is recorded. The court found the issue required evidence and no error of jurisdiction existed.
The Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH
TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/8TH KARTHIKA 1934
CRP.No. 448 of 2012 ()
IA.NO.1918/2012 IN OS.555/2009 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT:
FUNSKOOL (INDIA) LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JOHN K.BABY, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.K.M.JOHN FUNSKOOL (INDIA) LTD., TARAPORE TOWERS, VITH FLOOR 826, ANNASALAI, CHENNAI-600 002.
BY ADVS.SRI.C.HARIKUMAR
SMT.C.B.ANUROOPA
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
DUROWOOD INDUSTRIES KOTHALA.P.O, PAMPADY. 686 502.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
V. CHITAMBARESH, J
C.R.P. NO. 448 OF 2012
Dated this the 30th day of October, 2012
ORDER
The objection as regards the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit was earlier overruled by the court below. This was challenged by the petitioner/defendant in C.R.P. No. 367/2011 which was disposed of by order dated 06.02.2012. It was inter alia held therein as follows:
“7. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The issue relating to the jurisdiction of the court can be tried as a preliminary issue only if it can be disposed of without recording any evidence. If such an issue is a mixed question of law and facts requiring recording of evidence, it cannot be tried as a preliminary issue.
2
CRP No. 448/2012
The Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed.
V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE
ncd
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere under Section 115 CPC when the territorial jurisdiction involves a mixed question of law and facts requiring evidence.
Whether the petitioner can seek recording of evidence piecemeal on the issue of jurisdiction after a remand order.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Funs蔻ool (India) Limited
Durowood Industries Kothala
V. Chitambaresh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
