IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2009 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1931 AS.No. 265 of 1995(D) --------------------- OS.256/1991 of SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- BY ADV. SMT.S.JAYASREE SRI.G.SREEKUMAR CHELUR SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- ADV. SRI.M.R.PARAMESWARAN SRI.M.P.RAMNATH THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06 /2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = A.S.No. 265 of 1995-D = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of June 2009. JUDGMENT Basheer J: This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment passed by the court below in a suit for recovery of money on the strength of an agreement. The court below held that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit and the plaintiff had to file the suit before the court in Sharja in the United Arab Emirates. 2. The plaintiff in the suit has filed this appeal contending inter alia that the court below ought to have held that the suit would have been maintainable at least in the Subordinate Judge's Court, Thrissur since the defendant was a permanent resident within the jurisdiction of that court. In other words, the contention of the appellant is that even assuming the court at Ottapalam had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the finding of A.S.No. 265 of 1995-D 2 the court below that the suit had to be instituted before a court in Sharja cannot be sustained at all. 3. Sri. G.Sreekumar, learned counsel for the appellant concedes that the court at Ottapalam had no jurisdiction. However according to the learned counsel, the court below ought not to have proceeded further and entered the impugned finding. Learned counsel submits that the court below ought to have returned the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation before the proper court. He prays that the appeal may be disposed of with a proper direction to the court below in this regard. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are satisfied that the contention raised by the appellant is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. In that view of the matter, the decree and judgment passed by the court below are set aside. The case is remanded to the court below with a direction to pass appropriate orders in the matter in accordance with law and as provided under A.S.No. 265 of 1995-D 3 Rules 10 and 10(A) of order 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellant shall be entitled to refund of the court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal. Sd/- A.K.BASHEER JUDGE Sd/- P.S.GOPINATHAN JUDGE //True Copy// P.S. to Judge kkms/