Disposed

Jarald v. Ajith Kumar

Kerala HC21 Jan 2019OP(C)/150/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged pending implementation of an interim mandatory injunction in a suit regarding prescriptive easement rights. The Court ordered the lower court to hear the review application expeditiously and directed that implementation of the injunction remain in abeyance during pendency.

What did the court decide?

The Court directed the lower court to hear and dispose of the review application expeditiously and ordered the implementation of the mandatory injunction to be kept in abeyance pending such disposal.

Jarald Vs Ajith Kumar — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2019/1ST MAGHA, 1940

¶5

O.P.(C)No.150 of 2019

¶6

(AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN O.S.No.404/2018 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA)

¶7

PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS:

¶8

1 JARALD, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.MICHEL, RESIDING AT CHIRAYKKE VADAKKUMKARA KULATHIL VEEDU, KULATHOOR DESOM, KULATHOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK.

¶9

2 BEENA, AGED 35 YEARS, W/O.JARALD, RESIDING AT CHIRAYKKE VADAKKUMKARA KULATHIL VEEDU, KULATHOOR DESOM, KULATHOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.S.JUSTUS

¶11

RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS:

¶12

1 AJITH KUMAR, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.CHELLAYYAN NADAR, RESIDING AT CHIRAYKKE VADAKKUMKARA KULATHIL VEEDU, KULATHOOR DESOM, UCHAKKADA P.O., KULATHOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, PIN- 695 506.

¶13

2 ANITHA, AGED 28 YEARS, W/O.AJITHKUMAR, RESIDING AT CHIRAYKKE VADAKKUMKARA KULATHIL VEEDU, KULATHOOR DESOM, UCHAKKADA P.O., KULATHOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, PIN- 695 506.

¶14

3 CHELLAYYAN NADAR, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.PADMANABHAN NADAR, RESIDING AT CHIRAYKKE VADAKKUMKARA KULATHIL VEEDU, KULATHOOR DESOM, UCHAKKADA P.O., KULATHOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, PIN - 695 506.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI

¶16

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

O.P.(C).No.150 of 2019

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioners are the defendants in a suit for declaration of prescriptive easement right of way over the plaint C-schedule. An interim order of injunction was passed by the trial court restraining the defendants from obstructing the user of the plaint C-schedule way.

¶21

2. Alleging violation of the order of injunction, the plaintiff filed an application for interim mandatory injunction to remove the obstruction. It appears that, the application was allowed, however without hearing the respondent. The court below was constrained to do so, in view of the fact that inspite of repeated opportunities granted to the defendants, they did not file any objections.

¶22

O.P.(C).No.150 of 2019

¶23

¶24

3. The defendants filed a petition as I.A.No.6851/2018 seeking review of the order

¶25

of interim mandatory injunction and the same is pending. The grievance of the petitioner is that, pending consideration of the said application, the order of interim mandatory injunction is being implemented.

¶26

I refrain from making any observations on the merits of the review petition. I dispose of this original petition directing the learned Munsiff to hear and dispose of the application I.A.No.6851/2018 as expeditiously as possible. It is reported that the application presently stands posted to 24.1.2019. The respondents have already filed objections to the said application. In view thereof, the learned Munsiff shall make every endeavour to hear the application on the said date. In the meanwhile, pending disposal of the application, implementation of the order

¶27

O.P.(C).No.150 of 2019

¶28

¶29

of mandatory injunction shall be kept in

¶30

abeyance.

¶31

The original petition is disposed of as

¶32

above.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

¶35

¶36

O.P.(C).No.150 of 2019

¶37

¶38

APPENDIX

¶39

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶40

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.S.NO.404/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS IN O.S.NO.404/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5/12/2018 IN I.A.NO.4700/2018 IN O.S.NO.404/2018. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION I.A.NO.6851/2018 IN O.S.NO.404/2018.

Jarald v. Ajith Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jarald v. Ajith Kumar

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

Rahamath, Vs Haneffa

Dayana Ranjith Vs Thomas

Thampi Vs Ashraf

T.v.Lukose Vs Siby Thomas

Baiju Abraham Vs Sakkeerhusain

S.N.D.P Branch NO.3715 Vs Sadanandan