KALLERI KUNHAMMED Vs. K. V. MUHAMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Vadakara, in E.P. No.37/2021 in O.S. No.20/2019, the judgment debtor has filed the original petition. The respondent is the decree-holder.

(2.) The facts, in a nutshell, leading to Ext.P1 order are: the respondent had filed O.S. No.20/2019 against the petitioner for a decree for recovery of money. The petitioner had entered into Ext.P2 agreement with the respondent to borrow an amount of Rs.20.00 lakh. The petitioner had agreed to repay the amount within two years. The petitioner issued a cheque in discharge of his liability, which got dishonoured. Consequently, the respondent filed the suit. The court below decreed the suit on 27/2/2021 by Ext.P3 decree and Ext.P4 judgment. The respondent laid the decree to execution. The petitioner raised a preliminary objection that the decree was not executable because the court below lacked inherent jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute, which was commercial in nature, falling within the ken of clause (c) of Sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 2 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (in short, 'Act '). Therefore, the decree is a nullity. By the impugned Ext.P1 order, the court below rejected the petitioner 's objection. Ext.P1 order is ex-facie illegal and wrong. Hence, the original petition.

(3.) Heard; Sri.B.Krishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on admission.