Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S. 451/ 2025

Case between Padmaja vs Geethakumari et al regarding ad-interim injunction.

Court
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, VARKALA
Judge
Sri. ARAVIND. P.
Order Date
2025-12-19
Duration
Case Code No.
451
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Padmaja is the petitioner seeking an ad-interim injunction against Geethakumari and others regarding a property matter. The court found a prima facie case and granted injunction due to potential irreparable harm to the petitioner.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court granted the ad-interim injunction to the petitioner, restricting the defendants from encroaching on the property and creating new pathways.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Ad-interim injunction granted.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court granted the ad-interim injunction to the petitioner, restricting the defendants from encroaching on the property and creating new pathways.
Why Plaintiff Won:
A prima facie case was established and potential irreparable harm was identified.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
A prima facie case was established and potential irreparable harm was identified.
Supporting Evidence
I am satisfied that, a prima facie case is made out and the delay in issuing notice in this I.A will defeat the very purpose of the suit.

Judgment Evidence:

Hence the counter petitioner is restrained from, encroaching into plaint schedule property and further restrained from cutting open a new pathway through plaint schedule property until further orders.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Padmaja
Party Age
68
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Geethakumari
Party Age
64
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Mohanakumar
Party Age
70
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Rema
Party Age
62
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Rajendrababu
Party Age
72
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Rajeswari
Party Age
62
Relation
W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. Saj. S. Sivan
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Smt. B. Chithralekha
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. Sajilal
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The counter petitioner is restrained from encroaching into plaint schedule property and further restrained from cutting open a new pathway through plaint schedule property until further orders.
Evidence:
I am satisfied that, a prima facie case is made out and the delay in issuing notice in this I.A will defeat the very purpose of the suit. If ad-interim injunction is not granted, irreparable injury will be caused to the petitioner.

Documents & Evidence

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiffs Court, Varkala
Common Reasons
Case Code
O.S.
Case Code Year
2025

Quick Facts

Location
Varkala
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiffs Court, Varkala
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Mon, 09/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Wed, 12/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
85%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Sajitha. M. vs Sasi et al regarding temporary injunction.
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, VARKALA
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Balachandran et al vs Sajith et al regarding ad-interim injunction
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, VARKALA
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Sarasamma et al vs Sobhana et al regarding temporary injunction for construction
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, VARKALA
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Margaret Solomon Cruz et al vs Mabel James et al regarding declaration of title and injunction
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, VARKALA
Civil Suit Unknown
Case between Sheena vs Anvar et al regarding temporary injunction against illegal business.
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, VARKALA
Civil Suit Defendant Won