Radha v. Roshni
Case brief
What is this about?
This court dismissed a Civil Revision filed under Section 115 CPC as not maintainable. The court held that the dismissal of an application for temporary injunction does not finally dispose of the suit, precluding revisional jurisdiction.
What did the court decide?
Civil Revision dismissed as not maintainable.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2012/3RD JYAISHTA 1934
CRP.NO. 177 OF 2012 ()
---------------------CMA.56/2007 OF FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR I.A. NO.9672 OF 2006 IN OS.3114/2006 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, THRISSUR
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:
RADHA, AGED 66 YEARS W/O.PANKAJAKSHAN AND D/O.KANINGAT KOCHUKUTTY @ KALYANIKUTTY AMMA REVATHY VELLAT LANE, THRISSUR.
BY ADVS.SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH)
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
1. ROSHNI D/O.LATE HARSHAN, MANAPRAMBIL HOUSE, SHORNUR ROAD THRISSUR.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can entertain a civil revision under Section 115 CPC when the dismissal of the interim injunction application does not finally dispose of the suit.
Whether proviso to Section 115(1) CPC applies to the dismissal of an I.A. for temporary injunction.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Radha
- respondent
Roshni
- respondent
Bindhu
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court