Case Summary
Palath Imbichikoya filed a suit for a perpetual prohibitory injunction against Viji Joseph and others. The parties reached a settlement through mediation, leading to a judgment based on that agreement.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Defendants 3 and 4 are directed to construct a retaining wall and pay Rs.1,50,000 to the plaintiff.
Case Type
Original Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court accepted the mediation agreement, decreeing the suit in accordance with its terms, directing specific performance related to construction and payment.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court found the mediation agreement lawful and enforceable.
The court found the mediation agreement lawful and enforceable.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The court found the mediation agreement lawful and enforceable.
The court found the mediation agreement lawful and enforceable.
Supporting Evidence
I have gone through the terms of mediation agreement entered into between parties and I am satisfied that the terms of mediation agreement entered between parties are lawful and enforceable.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, suit is decreed in terms of mediation agreement executed by parties as follows: 1. The defendants 3 and 4 are directed to construct a retaining wall at their expense within two months from the date of agreement.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Palath Imbichikoya
- Party Age
- 55
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Viji Joseph
- Party Age
- 46
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- V.A. Gangadharan
- Party Age
- 48
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- K.M. Varghese
- Party Age
- 53
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Molly Varghese
- Party Age
- 61
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- N.J. Mani
- Party Age
- 80
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Mediation agreement.
Defendants Documents
Not mentioned.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. N.Manoj
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Sabu John Mathew
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Smt. Arpana. K. Gokul
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Defendants 3 and 4 are directed to construct a retaining wall at their expense within two months from the date of agreement at the Northern side of plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
Defendants 3 and 4 are directed to construct a retaining wall at their expense within two months from the date of agreement at the Northern side of plaint schedule property.
Relief Type:
Damages
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Defendants 3 and 4 are directed to pay Rs.1,50,000/- to plaintiff in terms of the settlement.
Evidence:
Defendants 3 and 4 are directed to pay Rs.1,50,000/- to plaintiff in terms of the settlement on or before 20/04/2025.
Relief Type:
Recovery
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Plaintiff is allowed to realise Rs.1,50,000/- with 12% interest from defendants 3 and 4 in case of default.
Evidence:
In case of default, the plaintiff is allowed to realise Rs.1,50,000/- with 12% interest from 19/02/2025 till the date of realisation from defendants 3 and 4.
Documents & Evidence
Case Classification
Case Type
Original Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 2 Kozhikode
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Palath Imbichikoya vs Viji Joseph et al regarding perpetual prohibitory injunction.
Case Code Year
Case between Palath Imbichikoya vs Viji Joseph et al regarding perpetual prohibitory injunction.
Case Flags
Adalath Resolved
Out-of-Court Settlement