Case Summary
The case involves a dispute between the defendants and the plaintiff regarding a permanent prohibitory injunction to prevent the defendants from blocking a pathway and other properties. The defendants are seeking to amend their written statement and counter claim to reflect recent changes in property transactions.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The petition for amendment filed by the defendants has been dismissed. The court considered the timing of the amendment and its implications on the case.
Key Reasoning:
The court ruled that allowing the amendment would be prejudicial to the plaintiffs due to its late submission.
The court ruled that allowing the amendment would be prejudicial to the plaintiffs due to its late submission.
Why Defendant Won:
The court ruled that allowing the amendment would be prejudicial to the plaintiffs due to its late submission.
The court ruled that allowing the amendment would be prejudicial to the plaintiffs due to its late submission.
Supporting Evidence
However proprietary requires that such discretion should ordinarily be exercised to allow the filing of a counter claim till the framing of issue for trial.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, Petition is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their respective costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Ramachandran
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Jayakumar
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Remani
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Radhakrishnan
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Rajeswari @ Raji
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- M G Sreedhara Menon
- Relation
- H/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- M P Ramnath
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Bepin Paul
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sandhya S
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Shalu Varghese
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Uma R Kamath
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- P Rajesh Kottakkal
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Varghese Varghese M
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Deepak S
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Antony Tharian
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- K S Akshay Mohan
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- M S Unnikrishnan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- K Sunil
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Aleena Maria Jose
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Ardra Krishnan M
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Krishnendu D
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Request to amend the counter claim to include a decree restraining the plaintiff from trespassing.
Evidence:
In the result, Petition is dismissed.
Relief Type:
Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Request for injunction to fix boundaries and restrain the plaintiff from obstructing construction.
Evidence:
Hence this court is satisfied that the petition has no merits and the amendment if allowed could be prejudicial to the plaintiff.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Describes the partition of properties among various members including the defendants.
Reference:
No.2253/1970
Document Type:
Gift Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Transferred property in favor of the 1st defendant.
Reference:
No.5747/1995
Document Type:
Gift Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Transferred property in favor of the 2nd defendant.
Reference:
No.5748/1995
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Transfer of property by the 3rd defendant in favor of the 1st defendant.
Reference:
No.1462/2014
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Transfer of property from the 1st defendant to the 2nd defendant.
Reference:
No.1146/2017
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Transfer of property from the 2nd defendant to the 1st defendant.
Reference:
No.1160/2017
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Transfer of property from the 2nd defendant to her children.
Reference:
No.1161/2017
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Sale of property by the additional defendants.
Reference:
No.1849/2017
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Sale of property by the 4th defendant.
Reference:
No.2080/2017
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Jayakumar et al vs Ramachandran regarding injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Jayakumar et al vs Ramachandran regarding injunction