IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2011 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 OP(C).No. 4133 of 2011(O) ------------------------- OP(ARB.) NO.1073/2011 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------- V.SUNIL KUMAR, AGED 40 YERS, S/O.LATE VELAYUDHAN, PROPRIETOR, M/S.V.K.EXPORTS, CHAVARA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT KUMBALATHU VEEDU, CHAVARA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW SRI.JOSEPH RONY JOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M/S.COOPA-BGB, 12 BP 667 ABIDJAN 12, COTE'D IVORY (IVORY COAST), WEST AFRICA. 2. LORD'S FAVOUR SARL, C/878 AGONG BOMEY, COTONOU EST, BENIN, WEST AFRICA. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C)NO.4133/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 COPY OF THE OP(ARB) 1073/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM EXT.P2 COPY OF IA NO.5256/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN OP(ARB) 1073/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM EXT.P3 COPY OF ORDER DATED 20.10.2011 PASSED BY THE FIRST ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM IN IA NO.5256/2011 IN OP(ARB) 1073/2011 EXT.P4 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.10.2011 PASSED BY THIS COURT IN OP(CIVIL) NO.3411/2011 EXT.P5 COPY OF IA NO.5549/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM IN IA NO.5256/2011 IN OP(ARB) 1073/2011 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.4133 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of December, 2011. JUDGMENT Petitioner has moved O.P.(Arb.) No.1073 of 2011 before learned Additional District Judge-I, Ernakulam. Notice was issued to the respondents but, it is not so far returned. The request in this Original Petition is to permit petitioner serve notice on the respondents by e-mail as provided under Rule 25 of Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”). 2. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision in Shivaprasad and State of Kerala (2011 (1) KLT 690) where this Court, in a situation where the provisions of the Town Planning Act were found inoperative held, so far as the issue in that case was concerned that until a new Act is enacted the provisions in the existing Act could be applied. 3. That principle cannot be applied to the issue on hand. Rule 25 of Order V of the Code is clear that service by e-mail or other mode as stated therein could be effected as may be provided by the Rules made by the High Court. In otherwords, in the absence of Rules made by the High Court service in the said manner cannot be effected. Hence the request cannot be allowed. OP(C)No.4133/2011 2 4. But, this is a matter which has to get the attention of the High Court. Hence the Registrar (Judicial) is directed to place the matter before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to consider whether Rules are required to be framed by this Court as required under Rule 25 of Order V of the Code. With the above direction this Original Petition is closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks