IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2011 / 6TH SRAVANA 1933 OP(C).No. 372 of 2010(O) ----------------------------------- [OP.(ARB).NO.454/2008 OF DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM] .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- PRADEEP, AGED 37, S/O. SOMAN, AMBILI BHAVAN, UMAYANALOOR, PERAYAM CHERI, THAZHUTHALA VILLAGE, KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU HARIHARAN. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- M/S. MUTHOOT LEASING AND FINANCE LIMITED, MUTHOOT CHAMBERS, 2ND FLOOR, OPPOSITE SARITHA THEATRE COMPLEX, BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 031, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. ADVS. SRI.C.S.MANILAL, SRI.S.NIDHEESH. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.(C).NO.372/2010-O: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1758/07. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ARBITRATION O.P.454/08. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DTD. 18/08/07. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DTD. 30/05/07. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DTD. 03/02/09. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DTD. 06/02/09. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE I.A. 2642/09. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN TR.P.(C).NO.25/09. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.372 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 28th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT This original petition concerns Arb.(O.P).No.454 of 2008 of the Court of learned Additional District Judge-V (Wakf Tribunal), Ernakulam. Petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of 4.05 Ares in survey 43/4/4/ and 2.68 Ares in survey 43/21/4. Respondent which is a financing company filed an application before the learned District Judge under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (for short, "the Act”). Learned District Judge made over that application to the learned Additional District Judge-V (Wakf Tribunal). As per the order of learned Additional District Judge properties were placed under attachment on 16.06.2008. Learning that, petitioner filed Ext.P7, claim petition. The grievance of petitioner is that learned Additional District Judge-V (Wakf Tribunal) is not taking up the matter since 17.06.2010 onwards for the reason that in Tr.P(C).No.25 of 2009 (relating to another matter) this Court passed an order on September 15, 2009 observing that transfer of application under Sec.9 of the Act to the Wakf Tribunal is not proper and directing re-transmission of records of the case to the District Court, Ernakulam. It is pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner that the said observation was made on a totally different context O.P(C).No.372 of 2010 -: 2 :- which has nothing to do with the situation on hand. It is submitted by learned counsel that even as per the definition of 'Court' under Sec.2(e) of the Act, what is excluded is only Courts subordinate to the District Court and that the Additional District Court is not a Court subordinate to the District Court. Reliance is placed on Secs.3 and 4 of the Kerala Civil Courts and Small Cause Courts Act, 1957 to contend that considering the extent of business more District Judges are appointed in the District Court and hence the Court of an Additional District Judge cannot said to be subordinate to the District Court. I have heard learned counsel for respondent also. 2. It is not necessary for me to go into those aspects since what is requested is only a direction to the learned Additional District Judge-V. (Wakf Tribunal) to consider the petitions pending before that court and pass appropriate orders as circumstances warranted. Resultantly this original petition is disposed of directing the learned Additional District Judge-V (Wakf Tribunal), Ernakulam to pass appropriate orders on Arb.(O.P).No.454 of 2008 pending in that Court as per the law as early as possible. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-