IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2010 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7934 of 2010(O) ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.138/2010 IN CF.60/2010 of MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY . .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ VALSALA @ MANIAMMA, VELANGATTU VADAKKATHIL, NJAKKALA MURI, NJAKKANAL P.O., KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.J.OM PRAKASH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. HAMEED, NADAYIL KANNIMEL VEEDU, KRISHNAPURAM MURI, KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, KRISHNAPURAM P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY. 2. N.JANARDHANAN, VELANGATTU VADAKKATHIL, NJAKKALA MURI, NJAKKANAL P.O., KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C). No. 7934 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Exts.P2 and P5 orders petitioner has approached this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Petitioner instituted a suit before the Munsiff's Court, Karunagappally seeking a decree for prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from forcibly evicting him from the suit premises. By Ext.P2 order the court below refused to receive the suit on file. The reason given was that the survey number of the plaint schedule property is not shown and the parties are residing outside the jurisdiction of the court. It is also stated that the document filed relates to Kayamkulam village. It is also stated that no document is produced to show that the plaintiff is doing business in the plaint schedule shop room and also that the said court has jurisdiction to try the suit. WPC.7934/2010. 2 3. The petitioner then obtained a document from the Village Officer and produced the same before the court below and sought review of the earlier order. The review petition was also dismissed. 4. It is extremely difficult to accept the orders of the court below. Both the orders are clearly unsustainable in law. Even assuming that all the facts are true, the court below cannot refuse to register the same nor can dismiss the petition. It can only return the plaint for presentation before appropriate court. 5. Petitioner has produced copy of the plaint as Ext.P1. On going through the averments in the plaint, it is difficult to say that the court concerned has no jurisdiction. At the initial stage all that one needs to look is the averments in the plaint. The issue as to whether the court has got territorial jurisdiction etc are to be considered later. The view now taken is too premature. In the result, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned orders are set aside and there will be a direction WPC.7934/2010. 3 to the court below to take back the suit on file and number the same, if otherwise in proper form. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.