ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 181 OF 2016

Case between Muhammed vs Parakkadan Hamza regarding permanent prohibitory injunction.

Court

COURT OF THE MUNSIFF OF TIRUR

Judge

Smt. VINCY.T.V.

Order Date

2017-02-21

Duration

Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Muhammed filed a suit against Parakkadan Hamza seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction. The court found that there was no necessity to proceed with the suit as related eviction proceedings were ongoing.

Judgment Outcome

Judgment Favored

Defendant

Relief Granted

Case Type

Civil Suit

Final Judgment

The suit was dismissed as there was no necessity to proceed with it due to ongoing eviction proceedings.

Key Reasoning:
The court determined there was no necessity to proceed with the suit due to the filing of related eviction proceedings.

Why Defendant Won:
Not available

Supporting Evidence

The court determined there was no necessity to proceed with the suit due to the filing of related eviction proceedings.

Judgment Evidence:

Hence dismissed.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: Muhammed
Party Age: 52
Relation: S/o

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Parakkadan Hamza
Party Age: 60
Relation: S/o

Plaintiffs Documents

Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role: Plaintiff
Advocate Name: Sri. C. Nandakumar
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Plaintiff
Advocate Name: Sri. K.T.Ajayan
Appearance Type: Assisting Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: Sri. M.A. Ismail
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: Sri. P. Abdul Gafoor
Appearance Type: Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction

Outcome: Rejected

Description:

The suit for permanent prohibitory injunction was dismissed.

Evidence:

As R.C.P. 78/2015 is filed for lawful eviction there is no necessity to proceed with this suit. Hence dismissed.

Documents & Evidence

Case Classification