Dismissed

Mohammed a Shereef v. Shibu J

Kerala HC25 Mar 2024CRP/155/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging orders rejecting an interim injunction application. The Court noted the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case as evidence of assuming the role was absent and his tenure had expired, rendering the application infructuous.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition dismissed with direction to the Additional Munsiff to dispose of the suit expeditiously.

Mohammed a Shereef Vs Shibu J — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 25^TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1946

¶5

CRP NO. 155 OF 2024

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.11.2019 IN I.A.NO.3355/2018 IN OS NO.614 OF 2018 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT,NEDUMANGAD AGAINS THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.01.2024 IN CMA NO.1 OF 2020 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/SUB COURT/COMMERCIAL COURT,

¶7

NEDUMANGAD

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/2ND APPELLANT/2 ND PETITIONER AND

¶9

DEFENDANT:

¶10

MOHAMMED A SHEREEF

¶11

AGED 64 YEARS S/O. MOHAMMED ALI, MANAKKATTIL HOUSE, VALIYAVELI (P.O) POUNDUKADAVU, KOLLUMURI, ATTIPRA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695021

¶12

BY ADVS. GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL R.B.BALACHANDRAN

¶13

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 & 1ST APPELLANT/COUNTER

¶14

PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 & 1ST PETITIONER/DEFENDANTS 1 TO 3 & 1 ST

¶15

PLAINTIFF:

¶16

1 SHIBU J AGED 50 YEARS S/O. JALALUDEEN, SHIBU MANZIL, PANGODE (P.O), ANAKODE MURI, OPPOSITE MTM SCHOOL, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695609

¶17

CRP NO. 155 OF 2024

¶18

: 2 :-

¶19

2 JOSEPH CHIRAYIL PHILIP AGED 49 YEARS S/O. PHILIP, CHIRAYIL SANTHOSH VILLA, PERINGARA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689108

¶20

3 B.RAJEEV AGED 40 YEARS S/O. KRISHNA PILLAI, RAJI BHAVANAM, KURUMBAYAM, KALLARA, KALLARA (P.O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ., PIN - 695608

¶21

4 MOTHER TERESA MEMORIAL TRUST MOTHER TERESA MEMORIAL SCHOOL OFFICE, PULIPPARA, PANGODE (P.O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695609

¶22

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

CRP NO. 155 OF 2024

¶24

: 3 :-

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶27

This CRP has been filed challenging the orders of the Additional Munsiff, Nedumangad and Sub Judge, Nedumangad respectively, dismissing the application for interim injunction filed by the revision petitioner invoking Order XXXIX Rule 1 of CPC.

¶28

The 1^st petitioner is a Private Trust. The 2^nd petitioner and the respondents are Trustees of the 1^st petitioner Trust. According to the petitioners, the 2^nd petitioner took charge of the Principal Secretary of the 1^st petitioner Trust on 14.05.2018. The suit was instituted when the respondents allegedly obstructed the 2^nd petitioner from acting as the Principal Secretary of the 1^st petitioner Trust.

¶29

The respondents filed objection contending that the 2^nd petitioner never assumed charge of the Principal Secretary and he left abroad even before the 1^st petitioner started the School. Hence, the 2^nd respondent was elected as the Secretary and he is now acting as Secretary of 1^st respondent Trust.

¶30

The learned Munsiff after considering the rival

¶31

CRP NO. 155 OF 2024

¶32

: 4 :-

¶33

contentions found that the 2^nd petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case and dismissed the application for injunction. In appeal, the learned Sub Judge found that there is no material to show that the 2^nd petitioner took charge of the Principal Secretary as claimed and his tenure as Principal Secretary expired on 13.05.2023. In these circumstances, the appeal was dismissed. It is challenging the above said orders, this revision petition is filed before this Court.

¶34

I have gone through the impugned orders. The 2^nd petitioner claimed that he took charge of the Principal Secretary on 14.05.2018. As rightly held by both the courts, there is nothing on record to show that he took charge of the Principal Secretary. Moreover, the tenure of the Principal Secretary is already over. Hence, virtually the prayer in the injunction application has become infructuous. I find no illegality or impropriety in the impugned orders. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. However, the learned Additional Munsiff is directed to dispose of the suit itself, as expeditiously as possible.

¶35

Sd/- DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE

¶36

Mohammed a Shereef v. Shibu J

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed a Shereef v. Shibu J

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

Siju Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Sarath Prabha Vs Sijo Paul

Suma Christal Vs Upendran

Anoop E Vs Smirti

Amina Beevi Vs Sonu.R. Jose

Sonu R Jose Vs Nazeer M M