Dismissed

Letha @ Hema Latha v. U.Damodaran

Kerala HC23 Aug 2016RP/591/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition challenging dismissal of a transfer petition based on lack of territorial jurisdiction. Court held that jurisdiction objections must be raised at the first instance and cannot be considered in transfer or review petitions. Petition dismissed for lack of merits.

What did the court decide?

The Review Petition is dismissed as it is devoid of merits and does not satisfy the conditions for review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the C.P.C.

Letha @ Hema Latha Vs U.Damodaran — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2016/1ST BHADRA, 1938 RP.No. 591 of 2016 () IN Tr.P(C).423/2012

¶5

AGAINST THE ORDER IN Tr.P(C) 423/2012 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 08-06-2016

¶6

REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶7

LETHA @ HEMA LATHA, AGED 51 YEARS, WIDOW OF LATE RADHA KRISHNAN, D/O.P.S. SUBRAMANIA PILLAI, LEKSHMI NIVAS, ANGADICKAL P.O., CHEGANNUR VILLAGE AND TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH

¶9

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶10

U.DAMODARAN, S/O. KUNJI KUTTY, SREESMA NIVAS, MUSHAPPILANGAD, KANNUR TALUK AND DISTRICT, PIN - 670 611.

¶11

BY SRI.R.SURENDRAN

¶12

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

K. HARILAL, J.

¶14

-----------------------------------------------------R.P. No.591 of 2016

¶15

-----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 23^rd day of August, 2016

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This Review Petition is filed to review the order dated 8/6/2016 passed in Tr.P.(C) No.423/2012. The

¶18

above Transfer Petition had been filed by the petitioner, seeking an order transferring O.S. No. 318/1996 pending before the Additional Sub Court, Thalassery, to the Sub Court, Mavelikkara. After considering the grounds raised in the Transfer Petition, this Court dismissed the said Transfer Petition on a finding that even though the petitioner contended that she is ailing from various diseases, no documents had been produced to show that she is ailing from any kind of disease. This order is sought to be reviewed in this Review Petition.

¶19

R.P. No.591 of 2016

¶20

-: 2 :-

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner advanced arguments highlighting Secs.16 and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure and contended that the subject matter of the suit is situating within the local limits of the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara and the 2^nd defendant resides in a place within the jurisdiction of the Sub Court, Mavelikkara. Therefore, actually, the Sub Court, Thalassery, has no territorial jurisdiction at all.

¶22

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent contends that the scope of review is confined to the grounds stated under Order 47 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. and the question of jurisdiction cannot be considered either in the Transfer Petition or in the Review Petition.

¶23

Going by the Memorandum of Review Petition, it is seen that as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, no ground coming under Order 47 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. has been raised in the

¶24

R.P. No.591 of 2016 -: 3 :-

¶25

Memorandum of Review Petition and the grounds are raised on the basis of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Sub Court, Thalassery, in view of Secs.16 and 20 of the C.P.C. As rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, according to Sec.21 of the C.P.C., objection to jurisdiction is the matter which ought to have been raised at the first instance at the earliest possible opportunity, before the settlement of issues. Admittedly, the Original Suit is one remanded for de novo trial, pursuant to the judgment passed in appeal. That apart, objection to territorial jurisdiction is not a matter to be considered either in the Transfer Petition or in the Review Petition. If there was lack of territorial jurisdiction, the petitioner should have raised the same at the earliest possible opportunity, before the settlement of issues in the suit itself.

¶26

In the above view, this Court finds that the grounds raised in the Review Petition are not sufficient to review the order, which is sought to be reviewed, in

¶27

R.P. No.591 of 2016

¶28

-: 4 :-

¶29

this Review Petition.

¶30

Thus, this Review Petition is devoid of merits and

¶31

dismissed accordingly.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(K. HARILAL, JUDGE)

¶34

Nan/

¶35

//true copy//

¶36

P.S. to Judge

Letha @ Hema Latha v. U.Damodaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Letha @ Hema Latha v. U.Damodaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramachandran Vs Gopalakurup Vijayan Pillai

Lidia Jino Vs State of Kerala

T.P.Abdul Hameed Vs Abdul Khaddar

M/S. Focal Image India Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Focal Image Ltd.

Dr.Lakshmi v.Nair Vs Subith

Muhammad Jamal Vs Rahiyanath