The above writ petition and the revision petition are filed by the defendant in O.S.No.107 of 2005 on the file of the Munsiff-Magistrate Court, Pattambi. Respondent in both the petitions is the plaintiff in the above suit. Suit is one for damages for a sum of Re.1/-for the alleged publication of defamatory statement against the plaintiff/respondent by the defendant. Since the question arising for consideration in the writ petition and also in the revision petition are interconnected, and after being heard together, they are disposed of by this common judgment/order.

2. The petitioner/defendant in his written statement among other contentions challenged the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit contending that no part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. After settling the issues in the suit, the issue relating to jurisdiction was considered preliminarily, and the learned Munsiff after hearing the counsel on both sides found that the court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit and answered that issue accordingly. Challenging that order of the learned Munsiff,

petitioner has filed the above revision. Plaintiff filed a replication in answer to the contentions taken by the petitioner/defendant in his written statement, the reception of which was objected to by the defendant. Learned Munsiff after hearing both sides passed an order accepting the replication reserving the question whether any new pleading has been brought in thereunder to be relegated for consideration at the stage of trial. Propriety and correctness of that order is impeached in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. I heard the counsel on both sides.

4. Inviting my attention to the copy of the plaint in the suit, which is produced as Ext.P2 in the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that nowhere in the plaint, there is any allegation as to the publication of any defamatory statement against the respondent/plaintiff within the jurisdiction of the court in which the suit had been instituted. But, only a vague statement that an advocate notice containing a defamatory statement was sent to him in his address within the jurisdiction of that court and so received by him. An advocate notice directly sent to the defendant, even if it contains defamatory statement without any publication thereof, would not entitle him to file a suit for damages for personal injuries in the court within which he received such notice in order to vest with the court jurisdiction to entertain such a suit, submits the learned counsel. When the plaint in the suit did not disclose the cause of action as having arisen within the jurisdiction of the court within which the suit was instituted and that was specifically challenged in the written statement by the defendant it is the submission of the counsel that the plaintiff filed a replication in which under the guise of furnishing a reply to the contentions raised in the written statement, a new cause of action is incorporated by way of fresh pleadings that the copies of the notice received by the plaintiff were also received by his daughter and also son-in-law, both residing within the jurisdiction of the court in which the suit was instituted and receipt of such notice, both containing defamatory statements against them, would confer jurisdiction in the court in which it was instituted. New pleading sought to be introduced by replication, that too, advancing a fresh cause of action not disclosed in the plaint despite being objected to was accepted by the court under the impugned order challenged in the writ petition and that gave rise to grave prejudice and injury, is the further submission of the counsel

contending that the replication of the plaintiff is liable to be rejected reversing Ext.P6 order of the learned Munsiff. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the court lac