(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred under Sec. 104 read with order 3 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure against the common order dated 19-12-2002 in IAs. 4679/02 and 3714/01 in OS.333/01 on the files of the Addl. Sub Judge, Ernakulam. Suit was instituted for cancellation of trust deed No. 1174/01 dated 20-4-01 of SRO Tripunithura executed by the first defendant. Plaintiff filed IA.37144/01 for temporary injunction restraining the defendants form invoking or implementing or claiming any benefit on the strength of trust deed No.1174/01. Defendants 2 & 3 had also filed an application for injunction restraining the plaintiff from continuing as manager of H.S. Irimpanam and from taking any policy decision and implementing the same touching the administration and management of the school and from making any appointment in the school. Both the applications were heard by the court below and were dismissed against which this appeal has been preferred by defendants 2 and 3. When the matter came up for hearing counsel appearing for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the appeal is not maintainable before this court since the valuation is below Rs.2 lakhs. Reference was made to various provisions of the Civil Courts Act 1957.
(2.) COUNSEL appearing for the appellant on the other hand submitted since this court has already issued notice it is appropriate that this court would dispose of the matter on merits. COUNSEL submitted in any view of the matter on merits. COUNSEL submitted in any view of the matter this court has got concurrent jurisdiction being a superior court. Since the question of jurisdiction has been raised we may decide that issue at the outset. Admittedly valuation of the suit is below Rs.2 lakhs. The limit of jurisdiction of court is dealt with in Part III of the Civil Courts Act 1957. Sec. 13 of the Act deals with appellate jurisdiction of District Court and Subordinate Judge s Court. Said provision as amended by Civil Courts (Amendment) Act 1996 is extracted below.