IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2008 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 36080 of 2008(T) -------------------------- OS.641/2008 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- K.G.KURUVILLA, AGED 53, S/O.K.M.GEORGE P/AT.HOLDER FOR G.P.NAIR, FAMILY TRUST, KAYYALACKAKOM, KURAVANKONAM JN., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.ANTONY C. ETTUKETTIL RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SECRETARY FORESTS, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (EFL) VAZHUTHAKKADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CUSTODIAN & CONSERVATOR OF FOREST OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD. BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER (FORESTS) SHRI. M.P.PRAKASH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P(C) No. 36080 OF 2008-T ------------------------------- Dated this the 9th December, 2008. JUDGMENT Heard counsel on both sides. This writ petition is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S 641/2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram seeking for an order quashing Ext.P2. Ext.P2 is an order passed by the Sub Judge on I.A.3446/2008 filed in the said suit seeking for an order of injunction. The said petition was dismissed by the Sub Judge. The petitioner has come up before this Court assailing Ext.P2 without filing a C.M.Appeal before the District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram for the reason that he was not heard and Ext.P2 order of dismissal was being passed by the court below when lawyers at Thiruvananthapuram were boycotting courts. The question as to whether Advocates are entitled to boycot putting the interests of the clients to peril is a different matter. However, according to the counsel for the petitioner the party cannot suffer on that score and therefore, Ext.P2 deserves to be set aside and the case remanded back for reconsideration of I.A.3446/2008. 2. Special Govt. Pleader for Forests on the other hand submits WPC 36080/2008 2 that the suit is in relation to immovable property and that it can be filed only before that court within whose jurisdiction the property is situated, that in the instant case the properties are situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Sub Court, Palghat and that the plaintiff has wrongly approached a court which has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matters involved in the suit. Counsel for the petitioner also has no quarrel in that, the suit ought to have been presented before the Sub Court, Palakkad being in relation to immovable property within its jurisdiction and that by a mistake it so happened that the suit happened to be filed in the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram as respondents 1 and 2 were having their offices at Thiruvananthapuram. That however, is not to determine the territorial jursidiction of the court in suits relating to immovable properties. Thus, after making submissions it is common case for both sides that the Thiruvananthapuram Sub Court was not having jurisdiction to deal with O.S.641/2008. 3. In the result, without prejudice to the petitioner moving for withdrawal of the suit from the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram and representing it before the Sub Court, Palakkad, I dispose of this writ petition setting aside Ext.P2 order as the said order is passed WPC 36080/2008 3 without jurisdiction. Petitioner/plainttiff may seek for appropriate reliefs from the court in which the suit may be represented. This writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. K.P.BALACHANDRAN JUDGE jj