IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 27TH MAGHA 1931 FAO.No. 12 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07/12/2007 IN EA.201/05 IN EP.5/2002 IN OS.34/2000 of SUB COURT, TIRUR .................... APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. DILEEP KUMAR, 19 YEARS, S/O.KOLAVARA ACHUTHAN, KOLAVARA HOUSE, B.P.AGADI P.O., TIRUR TALUK. 2. RATHIKA, D/O..KOLAVARA ACHUTHAN, KOLAVARA HOUSE, B.P.ANGADI, TIRUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.P.K.KHALEEMUDHEEN SRI.A.M.MAJIDA SRI.P.C.ANIL KUMAR SRI.DARSAN SOMANATH RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. P.C.SIDDIQUE, S/O.PAATTATHUR THODIYIL MUHAMMED KUTTY, THALAKKAD, THEVALAPPURAM, TIRUR. 2. K.P.LEELA, W/O.KOLAVARA ACHUTHAN, KOTTEPPADTH, B.P.ANGADI, TIRUR TALUK. 3. BAPPUTTY, S/O.NELLASSERY IBRAHIM, KANNOR VAKKAD, TIRUR. ADV. SRI.C.DILIP SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT FOR R3 SRI.K.N.ABHILASH FOR R3 SMT.R.LEELA FOR R3 THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A. NO.212/2008 IN F.A.O. NO.12/2008 DISMISSED 16/2/2010 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. SD/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ F.A.O.No.12 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. As we took up this appeal for hearing, a preliminary point of objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal was raised by the learned counsel for the respondents. It was submitted with reference to Section 13 of the Civil Courts Act that since valuation of the suit was below Rupees Two Lakhs and the suit itself was instituted after the commencement of the Civil Courts Act 6 of 1996 by which Section 13 of the Civil Court Act was amended, the present appeal itself directed against the order passed by the Sub Court can lie only to the District Court. 2. As requested by Sri.C.V.Manuvilsan, learned counsel for the appellant, we granted time till today and the learned counsel very fairly brought to our notice the judgment of a Division Bench of this court in Ramanan v. Chitrasenan (2007 (1) KHC 1044) which lays down in very clear terms that if the value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction is below Rupees Two Lakhs irrespective of the question as to what is the valuation for the FAO.No.12/2008 2 purpose of court fee, the appeal shall lie only to the District Court against the order passed in the suit. It is also laid down that it is not necessary to include cost for the purpose of valuation. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench in Ramanan v. Chitrasenan(supra). We hold that the above appeal is not maintainable. We direct return of the memorandum of appeal and the carbon copy of the order produced along with the appeal to the appellant, so that the appeal can be re-presented before the District Court, Manjeri. The Registry will return the papers to the counsel for the appellant at the earliest. The appellant will re-present the appeal before the District Court, Manjeri on or before 27/2/2010. The interim order issued by this court against the disbursement of the amount to the respondent will continue to be in force for a period of one month from today. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE dpk