Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 11526 Ker
Judgement Date : 8 April, 2021
FAO 32/2021 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Present:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
Thursday,the 8th day of April 2021/18th Chaithra, 1943
For information purpose only
FAO No.32/2021
OS No.30/2018 of the ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - VII, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANTS/2ND PLAINTIFFS
KRISHNA KISHAN NARANGALIL,AGED 45 YEARS
VADAKKEVALAPPIL HOUSE, VIYYUR.P.O, VILVATTOM VILLAGE,
THRISSUR TALUK-680009,MANAGING DIRECTOR,AL MUJEEB DIESEL
TRADING LLC, P.O.BOX NO.87406,DUBAI UAE.
BY ADV. C.A. ANOOP
RESPONDENTS/1ST PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANTS
1.AL MUJEEB DIESEL TRADING LLC
P.O.BOX NO.87406,DUBAI UAE,REPRESENTED BY MANAGING
DIRECTOR,KRISHNA KISHAN, S/O.NARANGALIL NARAYANAN,AGED
ABOUT 43 YEARS,ADAKKEVALAPPIL HOUSE,VIYOOR.P.O, VILVATTOM
VILLAGE,THRISSUR TALUK, RESIDING AT SHARJAH,P.O.BOX
NO.24602,UAE.
2.ALFAWZ CONTRACTING LLC,
P.O.BOX NO.40584,DUBAI,UAE, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER
MANOJ,AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,S/O SUBRAMANIAN,MOOLEKUDY
HOUSE,EDAVOOR, KANAYANNOOR TALUK,CHERANELLUR VILLAGE,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682023.
3.MANOJ,
MANAGING DIRECTOR,AL FAWZ CONTRACTING LLC,P.O.BOX
NO.40584,DUBAI,UAE,RESIDING AT MOOLEKUDY
HOUSE,EDAVOOR,KANAYANNOOR TALUK,CHERANELLUR
VILLAGE,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682023.
This FAO having come up for orders on 08/04/2021, the court on the same day passed
the following.
A.HARIPRASAD & ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., JJ.
................................................................................
F.A.O. No.32 of 2021
................................................................................
Dated this the 8th day of April, 2021
ORDER
For information purpose only Hariprasad, J.
Heard the learned counsel for appellant.
2. Appeal is against the order of return of plaint passed by the
Additional District Judge, Ernakulam in O.S.No.30 of 2018. It appears from the
records that the appellant preferred the above suit for enforcement of a foreign
judgment under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short,
"CPC"). Court below on finding that the suit should have been filed before the
Court of Subordinate Judge concerned, in view of Section 15 CPC, ordered to
return the plaint (wrongly mentioned as 'return the suit'). It is pointed out by the
learned counsel for appellant/plaintiff that at the inception of the proceedings
there was an order of attachment of immovable property belonging to the
defendant under Order XXXVIII Rule 11 CPC and that is still in force. It is also
brought out that the defendants have filed an application to lift the attachment
after passing the order by the court below to return the plaint.
3. Considering the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that
an appeal is not the proper remedy in this case as we are unable to find fault
with the judgment passed by the court below in the matter by ordering return of
plaint for presentation before the proper court. However, considering the facts
and circumstances and in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to convert
the appeal as an original petition under Section 227 of the Constitution
of India. Registry shall take steps to convert the appeal as an original
petition.
For information purpose only Issue notice to the respondents.
There shall be an interim order clarifying that the order of
attachment, if any in force, shall continue for a period of two months and
the plaint shall be taken back and presented before the appropriate court
within a period of one week.
Handover.
A.HARIPRASAD Judge
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
Judge
cks
/true copy/ Sd/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!