IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 9966 of 2010(O) ------------------------------------- (O.S.NO.390/2001 OF MUNSIFF COURT,MUVATTUPUZHA) .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- M.V.KUMARAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, AGED 68, RESIDING AT MATTATHIL HOUSE, MEKKADAMPU, VALAKOM VILLAGE, MOOVATTUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADVS. MR.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN, MR.P.P.BIJU. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- K.P.REMANAN, S/O.PAPPU, AGED 55, RESIDING AT KOTTUKKAL HOUSE, ERANALLOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C). No. 9966 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT In this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the following relief is sought for: “i) issue a direction to the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha not to entertain the courter claim of the respondent in O.S. 390 of 2001 as the court is lacking pecuniary jurisdiction.” 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. 390 of 2001 before the Munsiff's Court, Muvattupuzha. The suit was one for realisation of money and prohibitory injunction. There was a suit between the parties as O.S. 96 of 2001. In the said suit a compromise decree was passed and as per the compromise the plaintiff was bound to pay a sum of Rs.16008/- to the defendant. As per the terms of the settlement the defendant was liable to clear the whole amount due to a Co-operative Bank. Since the WPC.9966/2010. 2 defendant did not pay the amount the plaintiff had to pay the amount. The plaintiff laid a suit for recovery of that amount. 3. The defendant resisted the suit and filed a counter claim. It is stated that the counter claim exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsiff's court and an issue regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the counter claim was raised. 4. After trial, the suit was decreed. The respondent filed A.S.35 of 2008 before the Sub Court, Ernakulam. By judgment dated 21.2.2009 the decree and judgment of the trial court was set aside and the matter was remanded to the trial court for fresh disposal after accepting the written statement with counter claim. 5. Complaint of the petitioner is that even though the appellate court directed the Munsiff's Court to accept the resubmitted written statement with counter claim after affording an opportunity to the plaintiff to file written statement to the counter claim. It is therefore prayed that WPC.9966/2010. 3 there may be a direction to the Munsiff's Court not to admit the counter claim. 6. In the light of the order, that is proposed to be passed, it is unnecessary to issue notice to the respondent. 7. The remand order made in A.S. 35 of 2008 is explicit and clear. It reads as follows: “1. xxxx xxxx 2. If the cost is paid as above, the court below is directed to accept the re-submitted written statement with counter claim, give the respondent/plaintiff an opportunity to file written statement to it, give both parties an opportunity to adduce further evidence, if any, and dispose of the suit and counter claim on merit in accordance with law.” Therefore the trial court is bound by the said direction. There is no reason to believe that the trial court while considering the counter claim will not give due respect to the direction issued by the appellate court. At any rate, WPC.9966/2010. 4 there will be a direction to the trial court to consider the counter claim strictly in accordance with the remand order passed by the appellate court . The writ petition is disposed of as above. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.