GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI Vs. DEVASWOM TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the order of the Sub Court, Chengannur in I.A. No. 393 of 2009 in O.S. No. 54 of 2009. It was an application for appointment of a receiver which has been dismissed by the court below and aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs in the suit have come up in appeal.

(2.) Before entering into the facts of the case, the first objection raised by the learned Counsel for the contesting respondents in the appeal deserve consideration. Learned Counsel would submit that the appeal herein is valued for the purpose of jurisdiction as below Rs. 1 lakh. He would contend that the suit has been instituted in the Sub Court and when the jurisdictional value does not exceed Rs. 2 lakhs under the provisions of the Civil Courts Act, the jurisdiction to file an appeal is the District Court and not the High Court and so the appeal is not maintainable and therefore it has to be returned.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Counsel for the appellants would submit before me that a reading of Section 92 C.P.C. would enable the court to understand that it is a matter of concurrent jurisdiction for the Sub Judge as well as the District Judge and when one of such forum is chosen by the party then the other forum cannot be made use of for filing the appeal and therefore the only competent forum is the High Court to entertain the same.