Dismissed

Jenin Mon, v. Ibrahim E.A.

Kerala HC12 Jan 2021OP(C)/368/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition invoking Article 227 challenging orders from lower courts which found the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case regarding possession. The Court held that the finding on possession was not conclusive for injunction purposes and directed the lower court to conclude the suit expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

The petition failed, and the petitioner is directed to stay away from interfering with the operation of the crusher unit and the disposal of the suit.

Jenin Mon, Vs Ibrahim E.A. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 22TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

OP(C).No.368 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMA NO.11/2019 IN THE COURT OF SUB-JUDGE, PERUMBAVOOR IN I.A.NO.1697/2018 IN OS 330/2018 PENDING BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PERUMBAVOOR

¶7

PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS:

¶8

1 JENIN MON, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.DANIEL VARGHESE, VANDANATHIL, WEST VENGOLA P.O., VENGOLA KARA, ARAKKAPADY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK.

¶9

2 DANIEL VARGHESE, AGED 74 YEARS, S/O.VARKEY, VANDANATHIL, WEST VENGOLA P.O., VENGOLA KARA, ARAKKAPADY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.A.C.DEVASIA SMT.ANCY MATHEW

¶11

RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:

¶12

1 IBRAHIM E.A., AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.ALIYAR, ERUPPAKKOTTIL HOUSE, KUMARAPURAM P.O., PALLIKKARA KARA, KUNNATHUNADU VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN-683 565.

¶13

2 ALIYAR, AGED 65 YEARS, ERUPPAKKOTTIL HOUSE, KUMARAPURAM P.O., PALLIKKARA KARA, KUNNATHUNADU VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN683 565.

¶14

R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY R1-2 BY ADV. SHRI.JAVED HAIDER R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.SABU GEORGE R1-2 BY ADV. SMT.B.ANUSREE R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER

¶15

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

OP(C).No.368 OF 2020 2

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioners/plaintiffs being aggrieved by Exts.P7 and P8 orders passed by the courts below have filed this O.P invoking Article 227 of the

¶19

Constitution of India.

¶20

Plaint A and B schedule properties in O.S.No.330 of 2018 pending before the Munsiff's

¶21

Court, Perumbavoor were claimed by plaintiffs to be in their possession. Plaintiffs sought for a

¶22

decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants/respondents herein from interfering with operation of crusher unit in plaint A schedule and from trespassing upon plaint B schedule and also deterring operation of petrol pump. The respondents denied possession and contended that the suit was filed by the plaintiffs suppressing material facts.

¶23

OP(C).No.368 OF 2020 3

¶24

Looking at Exts.P7 and P8 orders, it is

¶25

seen that both courts below went into the

¶26

disputed possession and found that the plaintiffs failed to make out a prima facie

¶27

case. It was also held that the material facts

¶28

as to possession were suppressed by the plaintiffs.

¶29

appearing on both sides for some time, I am satisfied that there is nothing which justifies interference with the concurrent finding of the courts below as to prima facie case in favour of the respondents. However, I make it clear that

¶30

the finding as to possession cannot be

¶31

acknowledged as conclusive in as much as it was

¶32

rendered in the context of examining the existence of prima facie case which is the sole criterian for deciding a petition filed under

¶33

OP(C).No.368 OF 2020 4

¶34

Order 39 Rule 1 of the C.P.C.

¶35

In the result, this OP(C) fails and it is

¶36

dismissed. It is directed that the court below shall dispose of O.S.330 of 2018 as expeditiously as possible, untrammelled by the findings as to possession in the impugned orders challenged in this O.P.

Sd/-

T.V.ANILKUMAR,

JUDGE

OP(C).No.368 OF 2020 5

¶42

APPENDIX

¶43

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶44

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.330/2018 DATED 12.11.2018. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT DATED 30.03.2015. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT DATED 10.10.2015. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 20.06.2017. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.337/2017 DATED 20.06.2017. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.34/2018 DATED 01.10.2018. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CMA NO.11/2019 DATED 2401.2020. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO.1697/2018 IN OS NO.330/2018 DATED 23.05.2019.

¶45

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

Jenin Mon, v. Ibrahim E.A.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jenin Mon, v. Ibrahim E.A.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parvathy Vs Sai Raj

Dr.Cinda.S.Ukken Vs the Dean, Mes Medical College

Sudheesh P.S. Vs Sulabha

Asha Mol Vs Sreejith

Sobhana v.Shenoy Vs a.v.Mithra Devi Alias Mithra R.Rao

R.B.Sivaprasad Vs P.Geetha