C.v.Venu v. Margret Perera
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court extended an interim injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the scheduled property in an original suit filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 and Section 151 CPC, finding no prejudice despite the absence of immediate plans to alienate.
What did the court decide?
The interim order restraining the respondents from alienating the plaint schedule property in the suit shall continue till the disposal of the suit.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH
MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2015/1ST ASHADHA, 1937
FAO.No. 87 of 2015 ()
---------------------( I..A.NO.1725/2014 IN O.S.NO.84/2014 BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, IRINJALAKKUDA)
APPELLANT/PETITIONER
C.V.VENU, S/O.VAMANAN, BUSINESS, AGED 48 YEARS CHITTAYIL HOUSE, VADUTHALA DESOM, VADUTHALA P.O., CHERANELLOOR VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 023.
BY ADV. SRI.SHIJU VARGHEESE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to extend an interim order of injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the scheduled property till the disposal of the suit.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
C.V. Venu
- respondent
Margret Perera
- respondent
Mary Crispin Karmalo
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court