IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 14TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3593 of 2010(O) ------------------------- OS.195/2009 of MUNSIFF COURT, VAIKOM .................... PETITIONER(S): UNION BANK OF INDIA, HEAD OFFICE AT 239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARGH, MUMBAI-21, REPRESENTED BY SRI. MAHENDRA KUMAR.M CHIEF MANAGER, KOCHI MAIN BRANCH MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-02. BY ADV. SRI.REJI GEORGE SRI.S.K.MOHAMED SAJEER SMT.MANJU RAJAN RESPONDENT(S): 1. SANTHAKUMAR AMMA, D/O. BHAVANI AND W/O. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, AGED 62 YEARS, EDAMALA VEEU, PERUMPALLUR KARA,ARIKUZHA VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT THEREZHATHU KALLATTU VEEDU, THEKKEMURI, VADAKKEMURI VILLAGE. 2. JAYASREE, D/O. SANTHAKUMARI AMMA, AGED 39 YEARS, THEREZHATHU KALLATTU VEEDU, THEKKEMURI, VADAKKEMURI VILLAGE. 3. M.S. PACK MARINE EXPORTS MATTANCHERY VILLAGE, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER RAFEEK USMAN SAIT, S/O.J.M.USMAN SAIT, AZHAR BUILDING, D.S.ROAD, KOCHI-02. 4. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, S/O. SARASWATHI AMMA, AGED 70 YEARS, THEREZHATHU KALLATTU VEEDU, THEKKEMURI, VADAKKEMURI VILLAGE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(c).No.3593 of 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3 rd day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner/Bank is the 1st defendant in O.S.No.195 of 2009 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Vaikom. The said suit instituted by respondent Nos.1 and 2 is for setting aside the decree/order dated 13.12.2001 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam in T.A. No.1421 of 1997 as far as it relates to the plaintiffs and plaint schedule property on the ground of fraud and for a declaration that the plaint schedule property is not liable to be proceeded against as per the decree/order. Respondents 3 and 4 are defendants 2 and 3 in the said suit. The petitioner herein claims to have filed a written statement raising several objections including that the court below has no pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to try the suit and also that the suit was barred by Section 34 and 17 of the Securitization Act. The petitioner wanted the issue regarding the jurisdiction to be tried as a preliminary issue. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though Ext.P3 application filed as I.A.No.1355 of 2009 was allowed by the court below, the trial court, instead of proceeding to decide those issues as W.P.(c)No.3593 of 2010 2 preliminary issues, has proceeded with the trial of the case. Hence this writ petition. 2. Admittedly there is no interim order disabling the petitioner/1st defendant from executing the decree passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Hence, I do not think that it is necessary for the court below to decide the issue regarding jurisdiction as a a preliminary issue. Even if the question of jurisdiction is decided as preliminary issue, that may not be the end of the litigation, since there is every possibility of the party against whom an order is passed challenging the same before the superior court and the trial of the suit will again get delayed. It is therefore just and proper that the trial court decides the issue regarding jurisdiction along with the other issues during the trial of the suit. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed, reserving the right of the petitioner to raise all defences available to it during the trial of the suit. Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj