Partly allowed

K.P Remanan v. Smt. Rajamma

Kerala HC10 Jan 2014OP(C)/2688/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Kerala High Court order directed the trial court to receive and dispose of the petitioner's counter claim as an independent suit. The valuation was reduced below the pecuniary limit of one lakh rupees, rendering it maintainable despite the suit's disposal for other issues.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha to receive the counter claim, treat it as an independent suit, and dispose of it at the earliest upon payment of court fee.

K.P Remanan Vs Smt. Rajamma — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014/20TH POUSHA, 1935

¶5

OP(C).No. 2688 of 2013 (O)

¶6

IN OS 390/2001 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶8

K.P REMANAN

¶9

S/O PAPPU, KOTTUCKAL HOUSE, ENANANLOOR KARA ENANALOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN:686673.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.K.JAJU BABU

¶11

SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SRI.T.R.SADEESAN

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDNETS:

¶13

1. SMT. RAJAMMA

¶14

W/O LATE M.V.KUMARAN, MATTATHIL HOUSE, MEKKADAMPU KARA VALAKOM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, PIN:682 316.

¶15

2. SMT. SARITA

¶16

D/O LATE M.V.KUMARAN, MATTATHIL HOUSE, MEKKADAMPU KARA VALAKOM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, PIN:682 316.

¶17

3. SMT. SALINI

¶18

D/O LATE M.V.KUMARAN, MATTATHIL HOUSE, MEKKADAMPU KARA VALAKOM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, PIN:682 316.

¶19

4. SRI.JAYAN,

¶20

S/O LATE M.V.KUMARAN, MATTATHIL HOUSE, MEKKADAMPU KARA VALAKOM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, PIN:682 316.

¶21

R1,R2,R3,R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.M.JOSHI R1,R2,R3,R4 BY ADV. SMT.SIJI K.PAUL R. BY ADV. SRI.K.T.SAJU

¶22

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-01-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

OP(C).No. 2688 of 2013 (O)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶26

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.445/2005 IN O.S.390/2001 FOR AMENDMENT OF WRITTEN-STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶27

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.446/2005 IN OS.390/2001 FOR ACCEPTING THE WRITTEN-STATEMENT AND COUNTER CLAIM FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶28

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.447 IIN OS.390/2001 FOR REVIEW OF THE ORDER DATED 11.2.2005 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFOR ETHE MUNSIFF'S COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶29

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.2.2005 IN IA445/2005, IA446/2005 AND IA447/2005 IN O.S.390/2001 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶30

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.2.2009 IN AS 35/2008 OF SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶31

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.7.2011 PASSED BYT HE MUNSIFF'S COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶32

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.9.2012 IN O.P.NO.3252/2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶33

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDED COUNTER CLAIM FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON 1.3.2013 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶34

EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE IA1692/2013 DATED 17.6.2013 IN OS390/2001 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶35

EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.6.2013 DISMISSING THE COUNTER CLAIM.

¶36

OP(C).No. 2688 of 2013 (O)

¶37

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶38

EXHIBIT R1: TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION DATED 18.06.2013 FILED AGAINST IA No.1692/13 IN OS NO.390/01 BY THE RESPONDENTS.

¶39

EXHIBIT R2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.07.2013 IN OS NO.390/01 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA.

// true copy //

PA to Judge

das

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶44

==========================

¶45

O.P.(C). No. 2688 of 2013

¶46

=================================== Dated this the 10^th day of January, 2014

¶47

JUDGMENT

¶48

The counter claim originally filed by the petitioner herein, who was the defendant in OS No.390/2001 of Munsiff's court, Muvattupuzha was rejected since it was then beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of that court. The petitioner then moved this court. As per Ext.P7 judgment, this court held that the valuation of the counter claim exceeded 1 lakh. This court₹ directed the trial court to return the counter claim to the defendant for representation to the court having pecuniary jurisdiction. It was also directed that such counter claim shall be treated as an independent suit.

¶49

The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequently the valuation was amended limiting the claim to less than 1 lakh and so the Munsiff's court was perfectly₹ entitled to receive the same. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that such an application was not filed by the defendant in time. The suit was listed for trial and after the trial

¶50

-: 2 :-

¶51

O.P.(C). No. 2688/2013

¶52

it was decreed by the trial court.

¶53

The learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the appeal is pending against the decree granted by the trial court. The counter claim was not entertained and hence the question of passing judgment on that counter claim did not arise. The only request made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is to treat the counter claim as an independent suit and the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha may be directed to dispose of that counter claim at the earliest in accordance with law. It is stated that the counter claim is not barred by limitation. The fact that the suit has already been disposed of cannot be a reason not to entertain the counter claim. As already stated, the valuation shown therein is less than 1 lakh. Hence, the learned₹ Munsiff is directed to receive the counter claim and dispose of the same in accordance with law. Needless to say, the petitioner has to pay the court fee on the counter claim. If counter claim is received, the respondents will file the written statement. The counter claim shall be treated as if it is an independent suit and it shall be disposed of at the earliest.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶56

das

K.P Remanan v. Smt. Rajamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.P Remanan v. Smt. Rajamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.S. Viswanathan Vs Spl. Tahsildar

Devaki Amma Vs Ramachandran Pillai

Sini Chandra Vs Neelambaran

Francis Vs Jose

Prasantha K. Vs Rajendran

Balakrishnan Nair Vs Lathika