IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3077 of 2010(O) --------------------------------- OS.168/2009 of MUNSIFF COURT, KALPETTA .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- O.C.SADANANDAN, S/O.LATE PYTHAL, AGED 60 YEARS,RESIDING AT RATHNAGIRI ESTATE, ACHURANAM AMSOM AND DESOM OF VYTHIRI TALUK IN WAYNAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS.MR.C.S.MANU MR.S.K.PREMRAJ MR.ABHILASH AKBAR MR.T.B.SIVAPRASAD RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. O.C.CHANDRAN, S/O.LATE PHYTHAL, AGED 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT POURNAMI, MLA ROAD, KOVOOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,. 2. ANNE EVELYN SUKUMARAN, W/O.LATE O.C.SUKUMARAN, AGED 55 YEARS RESIDING AT FIR TREE FARM, HASWELL ROAD, WINGATE, DURHAM COUNTY, ENGLAND REPRESNTED BY HER P/A.HOLDER K.K.DASAN, S/O.KUNHIKKANNAN, AGED 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT KANNERI HOUSE,PO,CHUNDALE,WAYANAD DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2010, ALONG WITH WPC. NO.3114OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.BHAVADASAN, J. -------------------------------------------------- WP(C) Nos.3077 & 3114 of 2010 -------------------------------------------------- Dated 17th February 2010 Judgment Common issue arises for consideration in these two Writ Petitions and therefore, they are disposed of by this common Judgment. 2. The facts of WP(C) No.3114/10 are being referred for convenience. The petitioners are the defendants in OS No.170 of 2009 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kalpetta. It is claimed that the respondent, who is a British citizen, filed the suit, claiming rights over the agricultural land/plantation property belonging to the petitioners and seeking an injunction simpliciter as against the petitioners. A copy of the plaint in the said suit is produced as Ext.P1. The contention of the petitioners herein is that the suit itself is not maintainable as it violates the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management (Acquisition & Transfer of Immovable Property in India) WPC Nos.3077 & 3114/10 2 Regulation, 2000. They filed a written statement in the suit, which is produced as Ext.P2. The petitioners herein also filed IA No.1048/09, seeking to have the above issue considered as the preliminary issue and to postpone consideration of the other issues till then. The said IA is produced as Ext.P3. The grievance of the petitioners is that without considering Ext.P3 application and also Ext.P4 draft issues submitted by them, the Court below has framed and raised the issues. 3. If as a matter of fact, the petitioners have a case that proper issues have not been framed and raised by the Court below, they are free as per the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to bring it to the notice of the Court and suggest such issues as they deem fit for deciding the case. In that event, there is no reason to believe that the Court will not consider such a petition. Leaving open the liberty of the petitioners to move the WPC Nos.3077 & 3114/10 3 Court below, seeking appropriate amendments to the issues already raised, these petitions are disposed of. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WPC Nos.3077 & 3114/10 4