IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2010 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 OP(C).No. 954 of 2010(O) ------------------------ IA NO.2591/2010 IN OS.172/2010 of SUB COURT, TIRUR .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ T.V.FIROZ, S/O.AHAMMED HAJEE, THAZHATHE VEETTIL, O.K.MURI P.O., KOOTALLUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN HARIHARAN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M/S.MARS FINANCE, NO.53, ERULAPPAN STREET, SOWCARPET, CHENNAI - 600 079. REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SHAJAHAN, SAFETY AUTO CONSULTANTS, PAYYANANGADI, TIRUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676101. 2. MUHAMMED SHAFI, S/O.BEERAN, TRIPRAM HOUSE, ANAPADI, MALAPPURAM, PIN 676 505. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.954 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2010. JUDGMENT Petitioner who is a third party in O.S.No.172 of 2010 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Tirur claims to be the owner of a bus bearing registration No.KL-3N 3908, he allegedly having purchased it from respondent No.2. It is the case of petitioner that he obtained transfer of registration and permit in his name and while so, on an application preferred by respondent No.1 (I.A.No.2591 of 2010) that vehicle was attached and allegedly released to a third party. Petitioner, learning about attachment of vehicle filed Ext.P9, application for release of the vehicle claiming that he is the owner of the said vehicle. Later, respondent No.2 entered appearance in the case and contended that Sub Court, Tirur has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. That contention was accepted and the learned Sub Judge ordered the plaint to be returned to respondent No.1 for presentation in the court of learned Sub Judge, Manjeri. Grievance of petitioner is that while returning the plaint neither was the order of attachment passed on I.A.2591 of 2010 vacated nor any order passed on Ext.P9, application. Learned counsel submits that when the plaint is returned under Rule 10 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure for want of jurisdiction, territorial or otherwise, all interim orders passed by the court were required to be vacated. It is the further contention of learned counsel that the suit filed in the proper court cannot be treated as a continuation of the first suit. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Parameswara Kurup v. Vasudeva Kurup (1964 KLT 145) and Videocon International Ltd. v. Logos Traders OP(C) No.954/2010 2 and others (ILR 2007 (4) Kerala 370). Learned counsel points out that in the latter case question considered was whether the court which returned the plaint has power to extent time for re-presentation of plaint in the proper court. It was held that the court while returning the plaint having become functuous officio has no power to extent the time. Learned counsel submits that notwithstanding that plaint has already been returned it is within the power of learned Sub Judge, Tirur to vacate the interim orders passed on all applications in the suit. 2. I do not propose to issue any direction to the learned Sub Judge as prayed. In case the plaint has been returned for presentation in the proper court it is for the learned Sub Judge, Tirur to consider the contention of petitioner that interim orders if any passed in the suit are required to be vacated if not it has already been done. I therefore permit petitioner to urge his contentions before learned Sub Judge, Tirur. Learned Sub Judge shall pass appropriate orders in the matter as warranted by law. With the above direction, this petition is closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks