Reji .A vs M/S Sakthi Finance Ltd
2024 Latest Caselaw 18567 Ker

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.

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

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.