Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S.Manu, J
Abdul Azeez – Appellant
Versus
Ajinaz – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the lower court order challenged in appeal. (Para 1) |
| 2. competing contentions regarding the basis of appellate pecuniary jurisdiction. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. pecuniary jurisdiction is governed by the civil courts act, not the court fees act. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
Challenge in this appeal is against an order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge – I, Mavelikkara in AS No.9 of 2025. By the impugned order, the learned Additional District Judge returned the memorandum of appeal and also the petition to condone delay along with documents for presenting before proper Court as the valuation of the suit is Rs.36 lakhs.
2. The appellant has approached this Court contending that the learned Additional District Judge was not correct in returning the appeal as also the application to condone the delay. According to the appellant the challenge in the appeal is confined to the alternate relief granted in the suit. In the suit the learned Sub Judge directed to pay an amount of Rs.10 lakhs along with interest @ 9% to the plaintiff. The appellant contended that as the judgment and decree of the Trial Court are only for an amount of Rs.10 lakhs along with interest, t
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
