V.O.John, v. George.a.T.
Case brief
What is this about?
In an original petition challenging an interim injunction order, the Single Judge held there was no scope for interference at that stage. The court disposed of the petition
What did the court decide?
The O.P.(C) is disposed of with a direction to the trial court to try the suit and I.As. expeditiously.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2019 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1941
OP(C).No. 69 of 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMA 22/2018 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 7/2018 of MUNSIFF COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA
PETITIONER/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:
V.O.JOHN, AGED 70 YEARS
S/O.OUSEPH, VADAKKEKARA HOUSE, (NAMBIAPARAMBIL) ENANELLOOR KARA, ENANALLOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.SHYSON P.MANGUZHA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF 1 TO 4:
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there is scope for intervening in the impugned order passed by the Sub Court.
Whether the trial court should be directed to try the suit and interlocutory applications expeditiously.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
V.O.JOHN
- respondent
GEORGE.A.T.
- respondent
SHAJI THOMAS
- respondent
SAJI THOMAS
- respondent
MARGRETTE
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court