The High Court held that the first appeal was not maintainable as the District Court had exclusive jurisdiction over appeals of the suit's value under the amended Kerala Civil Courts Act. The appeal was disposed of without invoking Sections 5 and 141 of CPC to condone delay.
The appeal is disposed of; parties to appear before the District Court for delay condonation.
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
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2018 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1940
RFA.No. 447 of 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28-08-2014 IN OS 312/2013 of ADDL.SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM
APPELLANT/DEFENDANT :
C.V VIJAYAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, AGED 51, CHIRAYIL HOUSE, MANGANAM.P.O., PALOORPADY KARA, VIJAYAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, PIN-686 018.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.RANJIT (KOTTAYAM) SRI.GOKUL DAS V.V.H.
RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF :
SIBY G. JOHN S/O.JOHN, AGED 33, GRACE COTTAGE HOUSE, PERUMBAIKKATTUSERRY KARA, PERUMBAIKKATTU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.
BY ADV. SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR.
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
A.HARIPRASAD, J.
R.F.A No.447 of 2016
&
C.M Appln.No.400 of 2016
Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2018
J U D G M E N T
Heard the learned counsel on both sides.
appeal itself is not maintainable before this Court, as going by the
valuation, the appeal should have been filed before the Court of
District Judge concerned. The suit was filed on 21-06-2013 . Section
13 of Kerala Civil Courts Act, 1957 was amended with effect from
06-05-2013 by Act 26 of 2013, thereby enhancing the appellate
jurisdiction of the District Court from Rs.2 Lakhs to Rs.20 Lakhs. The
R.F.A No. 447 of 2016 2
suit claim is only Rs.13 Lakhs. It is therefore clear that the appeal
should have been instituted before the District Court concerned and
not before this Court. Hence the appeal is liable to be returned.
It is made clear that no order has been passed on the delay
condonation petition since the proper forum for considering that also is
the District Court concerned.
With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.
The parties are at liberty to take appropriate contentions in the
matter of delay condonation before the District Court concerned.
The parties shall appear before the District Court on 03-08-2018
A. HARIPRASAD,
JUDGE.
amk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the regular first appeal instituted before the High Court was maintainable given the appellate jurisdiction of the District Court under the amended Kerala Civil Courts Act.
Whether the present appeal, being outside the jurisdiction of the High Court, can be disposed of or requires transfer for consideration of related delay condonation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
C.V VIJAYAN
SIBY G. JOHN
A. HARIPRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
