This revision challenged interim injunctions allowing a temporary stay on construction. The High Court of Kerala found no illegality in courts below, which prioritized balance of convenience and irreparable injury for respondents. The petition was dismissed.
Revision petition dismissed; suit to be disposed within eight months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
TUESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2008 / 17TH ASHADHA 1930
CRP.No. 525 of 2008()
--------------------CMA.10/2007 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ATTINGAL OS.99/2006 of MUNSIFF COURT,ATTINGAL
REVN. PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS:
BY ADV. SRI.D.SAJEEV
RESPONDENTSRESPONDENTS:
CRP.No.525/08
2
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
C.R.P.No.525 of 2008
Dated this the 8th July, 2008.
O R D E R
Petitioners are the defendants and respondents the plaintiffs in O.S.No.99 of 2006, on the file of Munsiff Court, Attingal. I.A.No.571 of 2006 was filed by the respondents under Rules 1 and 2 of Order XXXIX of Code of Civil Procedure for an order of temporary injunction, till disposal of the suit, restraining respondents from reclaiming the plaint schedule paddy field without sanction of the District Collector and also from constructing structures in the property. As per order dated 23.3.2007, learned Munsiff allowed the application. Petitioners challenged that order before Sub Court, Attingal. Under order dated 27.5.2008, learned Sub Judge confirmed the order and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in this revision petition filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure.
CRP.No.525/2008
2
was heard.
CRP.No.525/2008
3
the suit, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Revision Petition is dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE
nj.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned provisional injunction order allows temporary construction by petitioners despite their undertaking to demolish structures if sued.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajendra Babu
Rajendra Prasad
Chandrasekharan
Gopinathan
Sudha
M. Sasidharan Nambiar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
