Dismissed

George Joseph v. Thomas K Iype

Kerala HC14 Aug 2017FAO/117/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that an appeal from an order of the Subordinate Judge Court in a suit valued at Rs. 13.68 lakhs lies only to the District Court under Section 13 of the Kerala Civil Courts Act as amended. The appeal filed before this court was declared not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Registry to return the certified copy of the impugned order to the learned counsel for the appellant; records transmitted back to the trial court.

George Joseph Vs Thomas K Iype — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/23RD SRAVANA, 1939

¶5

FAO.No. 117 of 2017 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A. NOS.185 & 186 OF 2016 IN O.S. NO.38/2014 OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, THIRUVALLA DATED 29.03.2017

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:

¶8

GEORGE JOSEPH

¶9

MUTTUMAN PADIKKAL HOUSE, PULLAD P.O., THIRUVALLA REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER P.G.GEORGE PADIKKAVELLIL, EDAYARANMULA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA KERALA.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY SRI.ROHIT C.OOMMEN

¶11

RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER/DEFENDANT:

¶12

THOMAS K.IYPE KALAPPURAYIL HOUSE, NIRANAM P.O. THIRUVALLA-689 621.

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.K.V.SADANANDA PRABHU SRI.A.KEVIN THOMAS

¶14

THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

P.N.RAVINDRAN & DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JJ.

¶16

F.A.O. No.117 of 2017

¶17

Dated this the 14^th day of August, 2017

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

P.N. Ravindran, J.

¶20

This appeal arises from the order passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Thiruvalla on 29.03.2017 in IA Nos.185 and 186 of 2016 in O.S. No.38 of 2014. By the said order the court below dismissed the applications filed by the plaintiff to set aside the order dismissing the suit for default and to restore it to file, as also the application filed along with it to accept the power of attorney of the plaintiff. The suit in which the impugned order was passed was instituted on 29.05.2016.

¶21

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that as the valuation of the instant suit is below Rupees Twenty lakhs, the suit being one instituted after Section 13 of the Kerala Civil Court's Act [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] was amended by

¶22

¶23

F.A.O. No.117 of 2017

¶24

Act 26 of 2013, the instant appeal against the impugned order would lie only to the District Court. After going through the plaint and Section 13 of the Act as amended by Section 26 of 2013, we are persuaded to accept the said submission. The total valuation of the suit is Rs.13,68,895/-. Section 13(1) of the Act stipulates that appeals from the decrees and orders of a Munsiff's Court and where the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit does not exceed Rupees Twenty lakhs from the original decrees and orders of a Subordinate Judges Court shall, when such appeals are allowed by law lie to the District Court. The words 'Twenty lakhs Rupees' were substituted in the place of 'Two Lakhs Rupees' with effect from 06.05.2013 by Act 26 of 2013. The instant suit, as stated earlier, was filed on 29.05.2016.

¶25

In such circumstances, there cannot be any doubt that an appeal from the order impugned in this appeal would lie only in the District Court. We accordingly hold that the instant appeal is not maintainable in this court. Registry is directed to return to learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the certified copy of the impugned order, after retaining a photostat copy in the

¶26

¶27

F.A.O. No.117 of 2017

¶28

records. It will be open to the appellant to invoke Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and contend that during the period from 17.07.2017, the date on which the instant appeal was filed in this court till today is liable to be excluded while computing the period of limitation for filing the appeal. Registry to transmit the records back to the trial court.

¶29

Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE.

¶30

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE.

¶31

//True Copy//

¶32

P.A. to Judge

¶33

sp/14/08/17

George Joseph v. Thomas K Iype

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

George Joseph v. Thomas K Iype

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

C.K.Ajith Vs Jayaprakash

The Food Corporation of India Vs Mr.E.a.Abdul Salam

Hashim Abu Nabeel Vs P.a.Hamza

Sebastian John Vs Jacob John

Valsan Vs Radhamani

Dr. Elsamma Chalamana Vs K.B. Venugopal