IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MAY 2010 / 29TH VAISAKHA 1932 SA.No. 693 of 1996(G) -------------------------------- AS.87/1995 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE OS.466/1995 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, KOZHIKODE-I .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANTS: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1 K.P. CHANDRA MOHAN, S/O.GANGADHARAN, AGED YEARS, VIJAYA MANDIR, KOTTARAM ROAD, KOZHIKODE-6. 2. K. RATHNAMANI, W/O.K.P. CHANDRA MOHAN, AGED 43 YEARS, VIJAYA MANDIR, KOTTARAM ROAD, KOZHIKODE-6. BY ADV. SMT.PRABHA R.MENON, SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR. RESPONDENT/APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFF: ----------------------------------------------------------- K.K. ABDUL SALEEM, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.ASSAIN, UNNIRAMPOYIL, DOOR NO.8/394, EYYAD AMSOM AMD DESOM, QUILANDY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN. THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/05/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs SA.No. 693 of 1996(G) ORDER ON C.M.P. NO.1477/1996 IN S.A. NO.693/1996 DISMISSED 19/05/2010. SD/- P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY PS TO JUDGE rs P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S.A. No. 693 of 1996 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of May, 2010. JUDGMENT O.S.466 of 1995 was a suit filed seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction to have the defendants restrained from blasting rocks from the property in the possession of the plaintiff without authorisation. It is unnecessary to go into the details of the case on the ground that this appeal can be disposed of on a very short ground. 2. The suit was resisted by the defendants on the ground that the court before which the suit had instituted had no territorial jurisdiction because the property in respect of which the relief was sought for was within Quilandy Taluk while the suit was instituted in Munsiff's Court of Calicut. It appears that the trial court was greatly impressed by the contention and chose to dismiss the suit, an act which was unwarranted, unjustified and uncalled for. If the court below felt that S.A. 693/1996. 2 the suit was not maintainable before the court, the proper course that should have been adopted is to return the plaint and not to dismiss the same. The plaintiff carried the matter in appeal before the Sub Court, Kozhikode. The appellate court relied on the proviso to Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure and held that the suit is maintainable and then remanded the matter for adjudication by the trial court. It is the said order that is assailed in this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that by no stretch of imagination proviso to Section 16 CPC could be invoked in the case on hand. It is pointed out that the proviso to Section 16 CPC has no application in the case on hand. Relying on the plaint reliefs, it was contended that the reliefs sought for fall under none of the categories mentioned in Section 16. Therefore reliance placed on the proviso is unjustified. 4. Accepting the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants, the contention based on the proviso to Section 16 is justified. Then the suit will come S.A. 693/1996. 3 within Section 20 CPC and it is certainly maintainable before the court before which it was filed. Therefore the order of the court below is upheld, but on a different ground. This appeal is without merits and it is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb. S.A. 693/1996. 4 P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S.A. No. 693 of 1996 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 19.05.2010