Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

During the Christmas holidays in 2007 respondents 1 to 3 filed a plaint in the court of district judge, Thiruvananthapuram, which has been empowered to entertain it by section 19(1) of the Kerala Civil Courts Act. The court took it on its file as I.A.No.3636 of 2007. The plaint showed that the court having jurisdiction to entertain the suit was sub court at Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioners in this O.P, who are defendants 1 and 2, entered appearance and filed Ext P2 'written statement'. They challenged the territorial jurisdiction of sub court at Thiruvananthapuram to entertain the suit as the plaint schedule properties are situated within the local limits of sub court at Attingal. They also raised a contention that as the valuation shown in the plaint was only Rs.25,000/- Munsiff court alone had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The district court returned the plaint with the endorsement ''returned for want of jurisdiction''. Along with the plaint the 'written statement' filed by the petitioners also was given to respondents 1 to 3. The latter made changes in the valuation shown in the plaint and filed it in sub court, Attingal, which took it on its file as O.S.No.22 of 2008. The petitioners entered appearance in that court. The plaint was amended pursuant to  the orders passed in I.A.No.1814 of 2008. I.A.No.1880 of 2008 filed by the petitioners to amend the written statement was dismissed. The 4th respondent was impleaded as additional third defendant. By the order passed in I.A.No.1809 of 2009 the plaint was once again amended. When the suit was posted for trial the petitioners and the fourth respondent remained absent and the court passed Ext P4 ex parte decree against them. The application filed by them to set aside the ex parte decree was dismissed. F.A.O.No.4 of 2012 and SLP No.15380 of 2012 filed by them also were dismissed. Later, they filed R.F.A.No.699 of 2012. A division bench of this court set aside the ex parte decree and remanded the matter to the trial court with a direction to consider the matter afresh after giving both parties opportunity to adduce evidence. After the remand, the petitioners filed Ext P6 'written statement' along with Ext P7 application to receive it. Respondents 1 to 3 objected to the prayer. The trial court held that Ext P6 written statement contained statements which are inconsistent with those in the written statement filed initially and the attempt of the petitioners was to take away the admission made in their initial written statement. It dismissed the application to receive the written statement which it called additional written statement, but granted them liberty to file an additional written statement "strictly in answer to the amended plaint". The refusal of the trial court to receive  the 'written statement' is challenged in this Original Petition.

2. Heard Sri.G.S.Ragunath counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.S.Sreekumar senior counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a suit can be said to have been instituted only when the plaint is filed in the regular court and the plaint filed by respondents 1 to 3 before the district court did not become a suit and there was no question of the petitioners' filing a written statement in the vacation court and the only written statement filed by them is the one they filed in the sub court, Attingal along with an application to receive it, which has been dismissed by the impugned order.

7. The petitioners who appeared before the vacation court in response to the notice issued to them filed a proceedings labelled 'written statement'. The submission of Sri.G.S.Ragunath, learned counsel for the  petitioners, is that it was only an objection and not a written statement as it was filed in answer to a proceedings taken on the file of the vacation court as an interlocutory application.

8. The term written statement is not defined in C.P.C or General Clauses Act. Section 27 C.P.C provides that where a suit has been duly instituted, a summons may be issued to the defendant to appear and answer the claim. The proceedings filed answering the claim of the plaintiff is called a written statement of defence, which is the term used in Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. The proceedings filed by the petitioners on their appearance before the vacation court bears the label written statement. It contains all the particulars which are ought to be stated in a written statement. It has been verified like a written statement. After entering appearance in the regular court (sub court, Attingal) they did not file another proceedings answering the claim in the plaint. The sub court recorded in the proceedings sheet that issues were framed, which means that the court treated the proceedings filed by the petitioners in the vacation court as their written statement (it is true that the court did not frame issues though it was recorded that issues were framed). In RFA.No.699 of 2012 filed by them the petitioners had no case that they had not filed written statement in the suit. The division bench which considered the appeal accepted the proceedings filed by them in the  vacation court as their written statement. In paragraph 20 in the judgment in the R.F.A the division bench has observed: " It is submitted that when there is already a written statement it is incumbent on the court to frame issues but the same is absent going by the judgment." Before the division bench submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the proceedings filed by them in the vacation court was their written statement. They even complained of the omission of the trial court to frame issues on the basis of their written statement and the pleadings of the respondents 1 to 3. It is also pertinent to note that in the trial court they filed I.A.No.1880/2008 for amending the 'written statement'. Their argument that the proceedings filed by them in the vacation court was not a written statement is only to be rejected.

9. The vacation court accepted the contentions raised by the petitioners that sub court, Thiruvananthapuram had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and so it ordered return of the plaint. The court made the following endorsement on the plaint: "Returned for want of jurisdiction".

10. Order 7 Rule 10 sub rule 2 C.P.C provides that on returning the plaint the judge shall endorse thereon the date of its presentation and return, the name of the party presented it and brief statement of the reasons for returning it. This was not complied with by the vacation  judge. In Devaki Amma vs. Kochunarayanan (1977 KLT 773) this court has expressed an opinion that the reasons for the return as provided for in rule 10(2) of Order VII need not be recorded on the back of the plaint itself and the order for return containing the reasons serves the purpose of an endorsement as required under rule 10(2). But in the case on hand no such separate order was passed. In Basil Attipetty @ Basil A.G vs. State of Kerala and Others (2012 (2) KHC) a division bench of this court has deprecated passing of nonspeaking orders. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners attacked the maintainability of the suit on two grounds viz. 1) as the valuation of the suit was only Rs.25,000/-, only Munsiff Court can entertain it. 2) as the properties are situated within the territorial limits of the court at Attingal, only that court can entertain the suit. The vacation judge did not mention how the sub court at Thiruvananthapuram lacked jurisdiction i.e whether it was subject matter, territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction. There was violation of the mandatory provision contained in Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code.