Case Summary
The petitioner, Shibu, is seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondents from trespassing into a pathway essential for accessing his property. The respondents deny the existence of this pathway and object to the amendment of the plaint.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court found in favor of the respondents, dismissing the petitioner's request to amend the plaint. The petition was deemed to be without merit and protracting the legal process.
Key Reasoning:
The respondents provided sufficient evidence showing that the petition was filed without good faith and was only an attempt to prolong proceedings.
The respondents provided sufficient evidence showing that the petition was filed without good faith and was only an attempt to prolong proceedings.
Why Defendant Won:
Not available
Not available
Supporting Evidence
This court is having no hesitation to conclude that the present petition is filed without any bonafides. The petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Shibu
- Party Age
- 43
- Relation
- S/o Sathyan
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Ajeesh
- Party Age
- 46
- Relation
- S/o Sadasivan
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Vasundhara devi
- Party Age
- 77
- Relation
- W/o Sadasivan
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Ajantha
- Party Age
- 51
- Relation
- D/o Sadasivan
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Shani
- Party Age
- 45
- Relation
- D/o Sasidharan
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Kappoor
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. S. Sunil
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Shajilal. S.
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The petitioner sought to amend the plaint to declare rights over plaint B schedule way.
Evidence:
The amendment sought in the petition is not required for a just disposal of the suit.
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Both parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
Evidence:
Considering the facts and circumstances of the petition, both parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The plaintiff obtained the property by virtue of the sale deed no.758/2011 dated 08.06.2020 of S.R.O, Navaikulam.
Reference:
null
Document Type:
Injunction Order
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The petitioner's claim of trespassing and violation of previous injunction was addressed based on an order in O.S.62/2018.
Reference:
O.S.62/2018
Document Type:
Oral Evidence
Submitted By:
Unknown
Relevance:
Evidence was discussed regarding the denial of plaint B schedule way existence by the respondents.
Reference:
null
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiffs Court, Varkala
Common Reasons
Non-payment of rent
Case Code
Case between Shibu vs Ajeesh et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Shibu vs Ajeesh et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction