K. Abraham Mathew, J.

1. During the Christmas holidays in 2007 respondents 1 to 3 filed a plaint in the court of district judge, Thiruvananthapuram, which has been empowered to entertain it by section 19(1) of the Kerala Civil Courts Act. The court took it on its file as I.A. No. 3636 of 2007. The plaint showed that the court having jurisdiction to entertain the suit was sub court at Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioners in this O.P. who are defendants 1 and 2, entered appearance and filed Ext P2 'written statement'. They challenged the territorial jurisdiction of sub court at Thiruvananthapuram to entertain the suit as the plaint schedule properties are situated within the local limits of sub court at Attingal. They also raised a contention that as the valuation shown in the plaint was only Rs. 25,000/- Munsiff court alone had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The district court returned the plaint with the endorsement ''returned for want of jurisdiction''. Along with the plaint the 'written statement' filed by the petitioners also was given to respondents 1 to 3. The latter made changes in the valuation shown in the plaint and filed it in sub court, Attingal, which took it on its file as O.S. No. 22 of 2008. The petitioners entered appearance in that court. The plaint was amended pursuant to the orders passed in I.A. No. 1814 of 2008. I.A. No. 1880 of 2008 filed by the petitioners to amend the written statement was dismissed. The 4th respondent was impleaded as additional third defendant. By the order passed in I.A. No. 1809 of 2009 the plaint was once again amended. When the suit was posted for trial the petitioners and the fourth respondent remained absent and the court passed Ext P4 ex-parte decree against them. The application filed by them to set aside the ex-parte decree was dismissed. F.A.O. No. 4 of 2012 and SLP No. 15380 of 2012 filed by them also were dismissed. Later, they filed R.F.A. No. 699 of 2012. A division bench of this court set aside the ex-parte decree and remanded the matter to the trial court with a direction to consider the matter afresh after giving both parties opportunity to adduce evidence. After the remand, the petitioners filed Ext P6 'written statement' along with Ext P7 application to receive it. Respondents 1 to 3 objected to the prayer. The trial court held that Ext P6 written statement contained statements which are inconsistent with those in the written statement filed initially and the attempt of the petitioners was to take away the admission made in their initial written statement. It dismissed the application to receive the written statement which it called additional written statement, but granted them liberty to file an additional written statement "strictly in answer to the amended plaint". The refusal of the trial court to receive the 'written statement' is challenged in this Original Petition.

2. Heard Sri. G.S. Ragunath counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. S. Sreekumar senior counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a suit can be said to have been instituted only when the plaint is filed in the regular court and the plaint filed by respondents 1 to 3 before the district court did not become a suit and there was no question of the petitioners' filing a written statement in the vacation court and the only written statement filed by them is the one they filed in the sub court, Attingal along with an application to receive it, which has been dismissed by the impugned order.

4. Section 19 of the Kerala Civil Courts Act which empowers the District Court to entertain proceedings during vacation reads thus:-

"(1) The High Court may permit the Civil Courts under its control to adjourn from time to time for periods not exceeding in the aggregate sixty days in each year.

(2) During the adjournment of a Civil Court, the High Court shall nominate a District Judge for each District, who shall have the power to make provisional o