The Kerala High Court dismissed the first appeal filed against an order directing the removal of a gate installed by appellants during the pendency of civil proceedings, noting the gate was not present when prior commissions were issued. The court held there was no prima facie reason to admit the appeal.
The appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 29TH MAGHA, 1943
FAO NO. 24 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN IA 3/2021 IN AS 14/2021 OF ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT-I , MAVELIKKARA
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24/2/2021 IN OS 334/2013 OF MUNSIFF COURT,HARIPPAD
PETITIONERS/COUNTER PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS
1 SARASWATHY, AGED 71 YEARS D/O.CHINNAMMA, AMBILY VILLA, THAMALLACKAL NORTH MURI, KUMARAPURAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.2 PREETHA, AGED 46 YEARS, D/O.SARASWATHY, AMBILY VILLA, THAMALLACKAL NORTH MURI, KUMARAPURAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS.M.V.THAMBAN R.REJI THARA THAMBAN B.BIPIN ARUN BOSERESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS:
1 VINOD, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.SUKUMARAN, VISHNU VIHAR, THAMALLACKAL NORTH MURI, KUMARAPURAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690548.2 SEEMA,AGED 43 YEARS W/O.VINDO, VISHNU VIHAR, THAMALLACKAL NORTH MURI, KUMARAPURAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690548.3 PRADEEPKUMAR, AGED 44 YEARS S/O.PRABHAKARAN, AMBILI VILLAYIL, THAMALLACKAL VADAKKU MURI, KUMARAPURAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN690548. BY ADV H.VISHNUDASTHIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
18.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
FAO NO. 24 OF 2022
2
JUDGMENT
This appeal came up for admission today.
2. Heard both sides.
3. It is against the order directing removal of a
gate installed during the pendency of the proceedings.
During the trial stage, two commissions were issued,
who, in turn, submitted their respective reports. At
that time, the gate now alleged to have been installed
in front of the alleged way was not there. It is a
subsequent installation made by the appellants herein.
Prima facie, it appears that there is no reason for
admitting the appeal. As such, the appeal is
dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
msp
3
FAO NO. 24 OF 2022
APPENDIX OF FAO 24/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.334/2013 ON
THE FILES OF HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT, HARIPPAD.
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN
O.S.NO.334/2013 ON THE FILES OF HON'BLE MUNSIFF
COURT, HARIPPAD.
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.02.2021 IN
O.S.NO.334/2013.
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE APPEAL
MEMORANDUM BEARING A.S.NO.14/2021 ON THE FILES
OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-I. MAVELIKARA.
Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.2/2021 IN AS NO.14/2021.
Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.3/2021 IN AS NO.14/2021.
Exhibit P7TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE
PETITIONERS TO I.A.NO.3/2021 IN AS NO.14/2021.
Exhibit P8TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.10.2021 IN
I.A.NO.3/2021 IN AS NO.14/2021.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal against the order directing removal of a gate installed during pendency of proceedings should be admitted.
Saraswathi
Preetha
Vinod
Seema
Pradeepkumar
P. Somarajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court