IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 RSA.No. 513 of 2010() --------------------- AS.53/2007 of SUB COURT, PALA OS.285/2005 of MUNSIF COURT, KANJIRAPPALLY .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT ------------------------------------------------- SAJIMON, PROPRIETOR, M/S.MALANKARA DRUG HOUSE, PHARMACEUTICAL DISTRIBUTORS, CLOCK TOWER BUILDING, NEAR VENUS THEATRE, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF ----------------------------------- KOKKAD PHARMACEUTICAL LABORATORIES LTD., MALLIKASSERRY.P.O, PAIKA, POOVARANY, KOTTAYAM, REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- R.S.A No.513 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of November 2010 JUDGMENT Appellant is the proprietor of a medical shop. In respect of supply of medicines to the appellant, the respondent/plaintiff, a pharmaceutical company, laid the suit for recovery of money. Appellant resisted the suit mainly on two grounds, that the court before which the suit was laid lacked territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute covered by the lis, and the other, a plea of discharge contending that the entire amount due to the plaintiff for supply of medicines had already been paid. Both the courts below negatived the contentions raised by the appellant to resist the suit claim. Concurrent decision rendered by the courts below decreeing the suit in favour of the respondent/ plaintiff is challenged in the appeal. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant. In respect of the supply of goods received from the plaintiff company, the appellant had previously instituted a suit before another court, in the jurisdiction of which his medical shop is situate, alleging that the goods supplied were of substandard. He claimed damages from the pharmaceutical company. That suit was dismissed and at a time when he preferred an appeal against the decree therein, R.S.A No.513 OF 2010 - 2 - the present suit was instituted by the pharmaceutical company to claim the value of the goods supplied, which is alleged as not discharged by the defendant. Mere fact that the appellant has instituted the suit before another court, in relation to another cause of action, over the supply of medicines received from the pharmaceutical company, does not how that the court before which the present suit was laid lacked territorial jurisdiction. Whatever be the merit of the case pleaded by the defendant with respect to the contentions raised over the territorial jurisdiction and also plea of discharge, both courts have found, no material was produced to sustain them. Whereas the plaintiff let in evidence examining a company official as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A6 to support the suit claim canvassed for what is seen is that the defendant kept away from the court even when he had raised a plea of discharge. Perusing the judgments rendered by the courts below, I find, no question of law, leave alone any substantial question of law is involved in the appeal, and as such, it is not entertainable. Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge vdv