IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2011 / 1ST ASWINA 1933 CRP.No. 64 of 2008() -------------------- CMA.41/2007 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA OS.136/2004 of SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ MULAMOOTTIL TRADING COMPANY, MULAMOOTTIL BUILDINGS, MARKET ROAD, KOZHENCHERRY, REP. BY PROP:JACOB THOMAS, MULAMOOTTIL HOUSE, KOZHENCHERRY MURI, KOZHENCHERRY VILLAGE. BY ADVS. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN, SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD, SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM), SRI.MATHEW SUNNY, SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- THE TRAVANCORE CEMENTS LTD., NATAKKOM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, REPRESENTED BY MG.DIRECTOR. BY SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV.SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS.P.JOSEPH, J. ========================= C.R.P.No.64 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this 23rd day of September, 2011 ORDER This revision is in challenge of the judgment of learned District Judge, Pathanamthitta in C.M.A.No.41 of 2007 confirming the order passed by learned Sub Judge, Pathanamthitta returning the plaint for presentation in the proper Court (Sub Court, Kottayam). Petitioner was appointed as a Stockist of the respondent for Pathanamthitta district and according to him for the said purpose he deposited a sum of `.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) as security. Since he was not interested in being a Stockist for the respondent, he demanded return of the amount and instituted suit in the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta for the said purpose. Learned Sub Judge found that territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit is with the Sub Court, Kottayam and accordingly returned the plaint which was challenged in C.M.A.No.41 of 2007. 2. When this civil revision was taken up for hearing learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that petitioner is prepared to abide by the order of the learned Sub Judge as confirmed by the learned District Judge, is ready and willing to present the plaint in the Sub Court, Kottayam and that petitioner C.R.P.No.64 of 2008 -: 2 :- may be granted some time to present the plaint. 3. I have heard learned counsel for respondent as well. Having regard to the circumstances stated, I am inclined to permit the petitioner to present the plaint before the appropriate Court within a week from this day. Resultantly this revision petition is disposed of permitting petitioner to present the plaint before the proper Court within a week from this day and in case the plaint is presented thus, learned Sub Judge shall take the plaint on file if otherwise it is an order notwithstanding the delay in presentation of the plaint. THOMAS.P.JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/-