Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. K. NATARAJAN, J
NIJITH – Appellant
Versus
NIMMY – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to trial court's order regarding jurisdiction. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments for and against preliminary jurisdiction issue. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. importance of establishing jurisdiction before trial. (Para 6 , 10) |
| 4. court's conclusion on the handling of issues. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. final decision to allow reconsideration of issues. (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT
(Dated: 27th November, 2025)
This original petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 05.12.2024, passed by the Additional Sub Judge-I, Ernakulam, in I.A. No.17 of 2024 in O.S. No.76 of 2018, for having rejected the application filed by the petitioner/defendants under Order
14 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of C.P.C.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the counsel for the respondents, and perused the records.
3. The case of the petitioners before the Trial Court is that the respondents filed a suit against the petitioners for the partition of A, B, C, and D schedule properties. The defendants appeared and filed a written statement contending that the ‘B’ schedule property is the self- acquired property of the 2nd defendant; therefore, it is not partible, and the ‘B’ sch
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
