(1.) Can an appeal be directly filed before a District Court, from decrees and orders of a Munsiff Court, when a Subordinate Judge's Court is established at a place other than the station of the District Court, is the question posed for consideration?
(2.) The skeletal facts relevant for the determination of the original petition are: the petitioner was the defendant in O.S.No.833/2016 of the Court of the Principal Munsiff, Nedumangad, filed by the respondent. The suit was allowed by Ext.P1 judgment. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 memorandum of appeal before the Court of the District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. The District Courts and the Subordinate Judge's Courts have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain appeals from the decrees and orders of the Munsiff's Courts in exigencies falling under the 1st proviso to Sec. 13 of the Kerala Civil Courts Act, 1957 (in short 'Act'). There is a Subordinate Judge's Court at Nedumangad, exercising civil and criminal jurisdiction, but the court is overburdened with work. On the contrary, there are seven District Courts in Thiruvananthapuram, where the work is comparatively lighter than the Subordinate Judge's Court, Nedumangad. Being desirous of having early disposal of the Ext.P.2 appeal, the petitioner had filed the appeal before the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Unfortunately, the learned District Judge, by Ext.P3 endorsement, has ordered the return of the appeal to be represented before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Nedumangad, on the ground that it is the notified court. The right to speedy justice is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. When the statute confers jurisdiction on both the District Court and the Subordinate Judge's Court, the petitioner is given the freedom to choose the court. Therefore, Ext.P3 endorsement, ordering the return of the appeal, is against the statute. Hence, the original petition.
(3.) Heard Sri.Arun V.G., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.