Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S No. 433/2022

Case between Dr.Sudeep Thomas vs Hoysala E Home Association et al regarding Mandatory Injunction

Court
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Sri. Nanda Krishna M.
Order Date
2025-06-12
Duration
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Dr. Sudeep Thomas is seeking a mandatory injunction against Hoysala E Home Association and its members due to their violation of previous court orders that obstruct his access to a road he claims rights over. The court is considering the placement of pots and a swing arm barrier that are blocking his entry.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court allowed the petitions of Dr. Sudeep Thomas, directing the Hoysala E Home Association to remove the pots and the swing arm barrier obstructing access to the road within 30 days.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Mandatory injunction to remove obstructions
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court allowed the petitions of Dr. Sudeep Thomas, directing the Hoysala E Home Association to remove the pots and the swing arm barrier obstructing access to the road within 30 days.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The petitioner established a strong prima facie case for the injunction.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Not available
Supporting Evidence
The petitions are allowed. The petitioner has made out a strong prima facie case for granting an interim mandatory injunction. Balance of convenience is also in favour of the petitioners since no prejudice can ensue upon the respondents if the prayer sought for is granted.

Judgment Evidence:

The petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to remove the pots and plants laid on the eastern side of plaint schedule road and also to remove the swing arm barrier erected in the plaint schedule road within 30 days in the absence of which the petitioner can execute the same with the assistance of this court at the cost of the respondents.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Dr.Sudeep Thomas
Party Age
52
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Jiji Mathew
Party Age
41
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Hoysala E Home Association
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
The President, Hoysala E Home Association
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
The Secretary, Hoysala E Home Association
Plaintiffs Documents
Copy of the Power of attorney, Copy of the Sale deed no. 636/2022 of SRO Thrikkakkara, Copy of the photographs (2 nos)
Defendants Documents
Photographs (4nos)

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Manu Roy
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Bindu K.N
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Leejoy Mathew V
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sabu S
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Rakesh Leo
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Directed the respondents to remove the pots and plants laid on the eastern side of the plaint schedule road.
Evidence:
Thus, the points are in favour of the petitioner. The petitions are allowed.
Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Directed the respondents to remove the swing arm barrier erected on the southern side of the plaint schedule road.
Evidence:
The petitions are allowed.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Power of Attorney
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Provided authority to represent the petitioner.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Established ownership and rights over the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Photographs
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Evidence of obstruction on the road caused by the respondents.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Photographs
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Evidence provided by the defendants to support their claims.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Provided findings of the advocate commissioner regarding the state of the property.
Reference:
Ext.C1

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Obstruction to property access
Case Code
Case between Dr.Sudeep Thomas vs Hoysala E Home Association et al regarding Mandatory Injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Dr.Sudeep Thomas vs Hoysala E Home Association et al regarding Mandatory Injunction

Quick Facts

Location
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Case Filed
Wed, 04/20/2022 - 12:00
Case Closed
From
Sun, 06/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Mon, 06/30/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
85%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases

Case between Garden View Apartment owners Association vs Ansal River Dale owners Association et al regarding Restoration Petition
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Shanoj R vs Joseph Augustin et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between M/s Indo Quartz vs M/s Ray Engineering Pvt. Ltd. et al regarding petition under Order 38 Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure.
COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between M/s. Canton Residency Pvt. Ltd. vs Kalamassery Municipality regarding dismissal of suit
THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Mrs. Julie Sebastian vs SREECHAND SPECIALITY HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. regarding settlement of claims.
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won