REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

VALSALA Appellant

V/S

Sarojini Prabhu Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

SASI @ SASIKUMAR AND OTHERS V. SOUDAMINI AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
F.B.,KIRPA SINGH V. AJAIPAL SINGH [REFERRED TO]
GANPAT RAI HIRALAL VS. AGGARWAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
DAJI SAHEB VS. SHANKAR RAO VITHALRAO MANE [REFERRED TO]
ITTYAVIRA MATHAI VS. VARKEY VARKEY [REFERRED TO]
MUKUND DEO DEAD VS. MAHADU [REFERRED TO]
P MOHAMMAD MEERA LEBBAI VS. THIRUMALAYA GOUNDER RAMASWAMY GOUN DAR [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SUKUMAR PYNE [REFERRED TO]
MARIA CRISTINA DE SOUZA SODDER VS. AMRIA ZURANA PEREIRA PINTO [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ORISSA VS. DHADI SAHU [REFERRED TO]
HITENDRA VISHNU THAKUR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHSINGH VS. CINTA DEVI [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE VS. R SHARADAMMA [REFERRED TO]
R M SESHADRI VS. PROVINCE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
CHINNA KUNJUKUNJU VS. KUTTY NEELAKANTAN [REFERRED TO]
DURYODHAN SAMAL VS. UMA DEI [REFERRED TO]
SAWALDAS MADHAVDAS VS. ARATI COTTON MILLS LTD [REFERRED TO]
CLARA VS. AUGUSTINE [REFERRED TO]
VASU VS. PATHOOTY UMMA [REFERRED TO]
FIRM MURLIDHAR VS. FIRM KISHORILAL [REFERRED TO]
DAIVANAYAGA REDDIAR VS. RENUKAMBAL AMMAL [REFERRED TO]
DELHI COTTON AND GENERAL MILLS CO VS. INCOME TAX COMMISSIONER [REFERRED TO]
GUNDAPUNEEDI VEERANNA AND ORS. VS. GUNDAPUNEEDI CHINA VENKANNA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 10-4-2013 in O.S. No. 748/2009 of the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda. There was a counter claim filed by the defendants which was also dismissed by the impugned judgment. The Registry has raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal before this Court by pointing out that, the valuation of the suit is below Rs. 2 Lakhs. The same has been contested by the learned counsel for the appellants by stating that the jurisdiction valuation will have to be taken as per the valuation in the suit as well as that of the counter claim. Accordingly, the matter was placed before the Bench for consideration as requested by the learned counsel for the appellants.

(2.) We heard learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Dinesh R. Shenoy and learned counsel for the respondents, Shri K.V. Sadananda Prabhu.

(3.) Shri Dinesh R. Shenoy, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in A.Z. Mohammed Farooq v. State Government, 1984 KerLT 346 to contend that the Full Bench has taken the view therein while interpreting Section 13 of the Kerala Civil Courts Act, 1957 and the meaning of the term "subject-mater" that "having regard to the provisions in O. VIII of C.P.C., it is possible to hold that the 'subject-matter' of the suit would be the aggregate of the amounts claimed in the plaint and in the written statement by way of counter claim. Issues are very much interlocked and the subject-matter of the suit itself becomes rolled up and inflated as the aggregate of the claims put forward in the suit and in the counter claim".

Click here to view full judgment.

VALSALA Vs. SAROJINI PRABHU

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address