Allowed

Chinnamuth @ Abdul Khader v. Saithoon

Kerala HC7 Jul 2016OP(C)/1305/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala set aside non-speaking interlocutory orders granting interim injunctions in a property dispute. The bench held that the orders lacked application of mind and requisite reasoning, directing the lower court to dispose of the matter on merits.

What did the court decide?

The interim injunction orders (Exts P6 and P7) and those extending them are set aside. The District Judge is directed to consider the application afresh and pass orders on merits.

Chinnamuth @ Abdul Khader Vs Saithoon — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2016/16TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 1305 of 2016 (O)

¶6

I.A.NO.415 OF 2016 IN C.M.A.NO.73/2016 OF DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD I.A.NO.2309 OF 2015 IN O.S.NO.532 OF 2015 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, ALATHUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS :

¶8

1. CHINNAMUTH @ ABDUL KHADER, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O.AHAMMEDMIRAN, RESIDING AT M.A.HOUSE, KARIYAKUNNU, PUTHUKKODE AMSOM DESOM,

¶9

ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶10

2. JALEEL,

¶11

S/O.CHINNAMUTHU @ ABDUL KHADER, RESIDING AT M.A. HOUSE, KARIYAKKUNNU, PUTHUKKODE AMSOM DESOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS :

¶14

1. SAITHOON, W/O.MUHAMMEDUPPA, RESIDING AT P.A.HOUSE, KARIYAKKUNNU, PUTHUKKODE AMSOM DESOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 541.

¶15

2. HAJA PAREED,

¶16

S/O.MUHAMMEDUPPA, RESIDING AT P.A.HOUSE, KARIYAKKUNNU, PUTHUKKODE AMSOM DESOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 541.

¶17

BY ADVS. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN

¶18

SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI SRI.SEBIN THOMAS

¶19

SRI.VIVEK V. KANNANKERI SMT.J.KASTHURI SRI.U.M.HASSAN

¶20

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

Msd.

¶22

OP(C).No. 1305 of 2016 (O)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶25

P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED 21.11.2015 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, ALATHUR IN O.S NO. 532 OF 2015.

¶26

P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 07.12.2015 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, ALATHUR IN O.S NO. 532 OF 2015.

¶27

P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE I.A NO.2309 OF 2015 WITH AFFIDAVIT DATED 21.11.2015 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, ALATHUR IN O.S NO. 532 OF 2015.

¶28

P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.01.2016 PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF COURT, ALATHUR IN I.A NO. 2309 OF 2015 IN O.S NO. 532 OF 2015.

¶29

P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE C.M.A. NO. 73 OF 2016 FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD DATED 11.02.2016.

¶30

P5(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO I.A.NO.415 OF 2016 IN C.M.A.NO.73 OF 2016 FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD, DATED 04.04.2016.

¶31

P6 A TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDERS OF THE COURT RECORDED ON THE DOCKET SHEET ALONG WITH A READABLE COPY IN CMA 73/16 DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD.

¶32

P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 13.04.2016 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-V, PALAKKAD IN I.A NO. 415 OF 2016 IN CMA NO. 73/2016.

¶33

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

K. HARILAL, J.

O.P. (C) No.1305 of 2016-O

¶40

-----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 7^th day of July, 2016

¶41

JUDGMENT

¶42

The petitioners are the defendants in O.S. No.532/2015 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Alathur. The above suit is instituted by the respondents herein for permanent prohibitory injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from constructing the building close to the fence of their 'A' schedule property, claimed by them. The learned Munsiff dismissed the Interlocutory Application seeking an interim injunction against making any construction abutting 'A' schedule property on the ground that the respondents do not have any right over the property and the petitioners have already obtained consent from the original owner of the property for

¶43

O.P. (C) No.1305 of 2016 -: 2 :-

¶44

construction abutting to the boundary line. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the the application seeking interim injunction, the respondents filed C.M.A. No.73/2016 before the District Court, Palakkad, and sought for an interim injunction against the petitioners. The learned District Judge granted an ex parte injunction by Ext.P6 for one month and thereafter, after hearing both parties, passed Ext.P7 order extending the interim injunction till 19/5/2016 and thereafter, it stands extended and continuing. The legality and correctness of Exts.P6 and P7 are impugned in this Original Petition.

¶45

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶46

Apparently, the impugned order, under challenge, is a non-speaking order, without application of mind. The reasoning is the soul of a judicial order and an order, without reasoning, is not a judicial order in the eye of law.

¶47

O.P. (C) No.1305 of 2016 -: 3 :-

¶48

In the above view, Exts.P6, P7 and all further orders extending the interim injunction are liable to be set aside at the threshold and I do so. The learned District Judge is directed to consider the application afresh and pass orders on merits, in accordance with law.

¶49

This Original Petition (Civil) is disposed of accordingly.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

(K. HARILAL, JUDGE)

¶52

Nan/

¶53

//true copy//

¶54

P.S. to Judge

Chinnamuth @ Abdul Khader v. Saithoon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chinnamuth @ Abdul Khader v. Saithoon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Keelath Mohammed Haji Vs Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.

State of Kerala Vs Carborandum Universal Ltd.

Baby Sheeja Vs Hemalatha

K.C.Antony Vs Vijayan

Fathima Vs M/S. Muthoot Leasing and Finance Limited

Ajithkumar Vs Krishnankutty Nair