IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RSA.No. 513 of 2010()
1. SAJIMON, PROPRIETOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KOKKAD PHARMACEUTICAL LABORATORIES LTD.,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.M.KURIAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :29/11/2010
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J
--------------------------------------
R.S.A No.513 OF 2010
--------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of November 2010
JUDGMENT
Appellant is the proprietor of a medical shop. In
respect of supply of medicines to the appellant, the
respondent/plaintiff, a pharmaceutical company, laid the suit for
recovery of money. Appellant resisted the suit mainly on two
grounds, that the court before which the suit was laid lacked
territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute covered by the lis,
and the other, a plea of discharge contending that the entire
amount due to the plaintiff for supply of medicines had already
been paid. Both the courts below negatived the contentions
raised by the appellant to resist the suit claim. Concurrent
decision rendered by the courts below decreeing the suit in favour
of the respondent/ plaintiff is challenged in the appeal.
2. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant. In respect
of the supply of goods received from the plaintiff company, the
appellant had previously instituted a suit before another court, in
the jurisdiction of which his medical shop is situate, alleging that
the goods supplied were of substandard. He claimed damages
from the pharmaceutical company. That suit was dismissed and
at a time when he preferred an appeal against the decree therein,
R.S.A No.513 OF 2010 – 2 –
the present suit was instituted by the pharmaceutical company to
claim the value of the goods supplied, which is alleged as not
discharged by the defendant. Mere fact that the appellant has
instituted the suit before another court, in relation to another
cause of action, over the supply of medicines received from the
pharmaceutical company, does not how that the court before
which the present suit was laid lacked territorial jurisdiction.
Whatever be the merit of the case pleaded by the defendant with
respect to the contentions raised over the territorial jurisdiction
and also plea of discharge, both courts have found, no material
was produced to sustain them. Whereas the plaintiff let in
evidence examining a company official as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A6
to support the suit claim canvassed for what is seen is that the
defendant kept away from the court even when he had raised a
plea of discharge. Perusing the judgments rendered by the courts
below, I find, no question of law, leave alone any substantial
question of law is involved in the appeal, and as such, it is not
entertainable. Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
JUDGE
//True Copy//
P.A to Judge
vdv