IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 28TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 27638 of 2008(M) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 610/2007 IN OS.104/2006 of ADDL.SUB COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER: ------------ THE RUBBER BOARD, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR (P & PD) MR.M.K.BALAGOPALAN NAIR. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN SRI.TERRY V.JAMES RESPONDENTS: ------------- M/S. COMTRUST SUPER DESIGNER TILES PVT. LTD, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD TALUK, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER T.VENUGOPAL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.(C) No. 27638 of 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 19-09-2008 JUDGMENT The defendant in O.S.No. 104 of 2006 on the file of the Sub Court, Palakkad which is a suit for realisation of money challenges Ext.P4 order dated 24-06-2008 passed by the trial court dismissing the application filed by the petitioner as I.A. No. 610 of 2007 under Order 14 Rule 2 read with Sec. 151 C.P.C. seeking to decide the question of territorial jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. 2. As against the plaint averment, that part of the cause of action arose at Kavilpad amsom and so it was within the territorial jurisdiction of the court below, (i.e. Sub Court, Palakkad), the petitioner alleged in the written statement that the entire transaction had taken place in Kottayam District, outside the jurisdiction of the court below. The court below was not inclined to accept the said contention to hold that that court has no territorial W.P.C. 27638 of 2008 -:2:- jurisdiction over the matter. 3. It is settled position that for deciding the territorial jurisdiction of the court, at the threshold, the court need only look into the averments in the plaint. The contention of the defendant in a subsequently filed written statement cannot decide the locus of the forum at that stage. If after trial, the court is of the view that no part of the cause of action arose in the local limits of the court below, then the court may decide the question of territorial jurisdiction after considering the principle enunciated in Sec. 21 of C.P.C. I see no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the court below . This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani. W.P.C. 27638 of 2008 -:3:-