IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI TH WEDNESDAY, THE 19 DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1946 CRP NO. 346 OF 2023 OS NO.1507 OF 2022 OF II ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REVISION PETITIONER/S:

BINDU BABU, AGED 40 YEARS D/O MANIYAMMA, KALLUKUNNU VEEDU, VANDIPURA, PALYAMKUNNU P.O, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ., PIN - 695146 BY ADV LIJU. M.P RESPONDENT/S:

1 CLAUDIO COLANGELO, AGED 71 YEARS S/O GIOVANNI, BECO DA MOURAENCANTADA 5 R/C ESQ A, 8800-665 TAVIRA, PORTUGAL; REPRESENTED THROUGH HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER S. AMBUJAKSHAN, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O MR. SADASIVAN

2/354CHARUVILA VEEDU, KEDAKULAM, HARIHARAPURAM P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695310

2 DHANYA MOL MANIYAMMA, AGED 25 YEARS W/O CLAUDIO COLANGELO, BECO DA MOURA ENCANTADA 5 R/C ESQ A, 8800-665 TAVIRA, PORTUGAL; REPRESENTED THROUGH HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER S. AMBUJAKSHAN, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O MR.

SADASIVAN 2/354 CHARUVILA VEEDU, KEDAKULAM, HARIHARAPURAMP.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ., PIN - 695310 BY ADVS.ANOOP BHASKAR AMMU MANOHARAN NARAYANAN(K/683/2014)

SATHYA SREEKUMARAN(K/003541/2022)

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

19.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

(Dated this the 19^th day of March 2025)

The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.1507 of 2022 on the files of the 2^nd Additional Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The respondents are the plaintiffs therein. The suit was filed for the realisation of money and for the recovery of movables. The suit was filed before the Munsiff court, Thiruvananthapuram, as, according to the plaintiffs, part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Munsiff court, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. On receipt of summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed I.A.No.6 of 2023 to hear and consider the maintainability of suit as a preliminary issue. The trial court heard the maintainability petition and, by order dated 4.4.2023, held that the question of territorial jurisdiction is a mixed question of law and fact and, therefore, cannot be disposed of as a preliminary issue. Thus, the petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order, this revision is filed under Section 115 CPC.

3. Counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Liju M.P. argued that a reading of the entire pleading would show that the entire cause of action occurred at Varkala, and therefore, the Munsiff court, Thiruvananthapuram, does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the suit.

4. The suit is filed for the realization of Rs.2,86,000/-

from the defendant and her assets and for a direction to return the Italian coffee machine, grinder, Refrigerator, and Microwave Oven to the 1^st plaintiff. The defendant is running a small coffee shop called ‘Café Aromatico’ at Varkala Cliff. It is also pleaded in the plaint that on 19.2.2020, a fire broke out in the cafe, and the shop was fully gutted. During that period, 1^st plaintiff was at Varkala, and the defendant approached him with a request to help to set up the cafe in the same location. The 1^st plaintiff assured to help the defendant to set up the new cafe.

5. It is further pleaded that in order to set up the café, the materials required for the structure of the cafe were purchased from ‘Brother Steels & Tubes, Muttathara’ and a coffee vending machine was brought from Italy and delivery was from the International Airport, Thiruvananthapuram and then taken to the cafe. Thus, it is admitted that the coffee machine, though delivered through the International Airport, Thiruvananthapuram, was delivered at Varkala, and therefore, no part of the cause of action arose within the Munsiff court, Thiruvananthapuram, even if steel materials were purchased from Thiruvananthapuram. Since the suit is filed for recovery of money, that cannot be taken as a cause of action. Therefore, prayed that the order in I.A. No.6 of 2023, be set aside and declare that the Munsiff court, Thiruvananthapuram has no territorial