Kerala High Court
Reji .A vs M/S Sakthi Finance Ltd on 27 June, 2024
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1946
OP(C) NO. 1355 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.06.2024 in IA NOS. 112 & 114/24
IN AOP NO.31 OF 2024 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT III,
ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
REJI .A., AGED 45 YEARS
S/O RAJU AMBROSE KUREEKANNAM, KIDANGAYAN,
PADANILAYA POST,ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690529
BY ADV N.K.MOHANLAL
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
M/S SAKTHI FINANCE LTD.
BRANCH OFFICE AT PMC, IX/1128(1)E, 1ST FLOOR ABAN
ARCADE, RING ROAD, NEAR BUS STAND,
PATHANAMTHITTA,REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, PIN -
689645
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
O.P.(C).No.1355/2024
-:2:-
JUDGMENT
Exts.P3 and P4 orders passed by the Additional District Court-III, Alappuzha (for short 'the trial court') are under challenge in this original petition.
2. The trial court passed an order under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') in I.A.No.3/2024 dated 9.4.2024 in AOP No.31/2024. As per the said order, the vehicle belonging to the petitioner was ordered to be taken possession through the advocate commissioner. Instead of challenging the said order in appeal, the petitioner filed I.A.No.112/2024 to review the order in I.A.No.3/2024 dated 9.4.2024. Along with the same, the petitioner has also filed I.A.No.114/2024 to stay the order in I.A.No.3/2024 dated 9.4.2024. The trial court dismissed both applications as per Exts.P3 and P4. It is challenging the said orders, this original petition has been filed.
O.P.(C).No.1355/2024-:3:-
3. The order passed by the trial court under Section 9 of the Act is appealable under Section 37 of the Act. Without challenging the said order in the appellate court, the petitioner has filed a review application. The remedy open to the petitioner is to challenge the order passed under Section 9 of the Act before the appellate court. The review application is not maintainable. Hence, the trial court has rightly dismissed the review application as well as the application to stay the order passed under Section 9 of the Act. I find no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order.
Accordingly, the original petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE kp O.P.(C).No.1355/2024 -:4:- APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1355/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit -P1 A TRUE COPY OF REVIEW PETITION I A 112/24 IN AOP 31/2014 OF HON'BLE ADDL.
DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA DATED
25/4/2024
Exhibit -P2 A TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION I A 114/24
IN AOP 31/2014 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT III, ALAPPUZHA, DATED 25/4/2024 Exhibit -P3 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER 10/06/24 IN I A 112/2024 IN AOP 31/2014 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-III, ALAPPUZHA.
Exhibit -P4 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 10/06/24 IN I A 114/2024 IN AOP 31/2014 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-III, ALAPPUZHA.