Satheeshkumar vs Prasad
2021 Latest Caselaw 11715 Ker

RSA 870/2019                               1/2

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                        Present:
                    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR
                 Friday,the 9thday of April 2021/19thChaithra, 1943
                            IA 1/2019 IN RSA/870/2019(C)

AS No.113/2016 of the ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR
           For information purpose only
OS No.304/2013 of the MUNSIFF COURT, NORTH PARAVUR


PETITIONER/APPELLANT:

SATHEESHKUMAR,AGED 57 YEARS,
S/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, KOTTAKKAL VEETTIL, MUPPATHADAM KARA,
KADUNGALLUR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

1.PRASAD,AGED 57 YEARS,
S/O. PARAMATT SREEDHARAN NAIR, SREYAS VEETTIL,
MUPPATHADAM KARA, KADUNGALLUR VILLAGE,
PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

And others

                Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed
therewith the High Court be pleased that the mandatory injunction portion allowed by the
Court below in OS.No.304/2013 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court, North Paravur be
stayed,till the disposal of this Appeal.
                This application again coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and the affidavit filed in support thereof and this Court's order dated 20.03.2020 and
upon hearing the arguments of M/S. K.NARAYANAN (PARAVUR) and LISHA K.R,
Advocates for the petitioner, and SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR, Advocate
for Respondent1 and of SRI.DENNY DEVASSY, Advocate for Respondent 3,the court
passed the following:
                     N. ANIL KUMAR, J.
        -----------------------------------------
                   RSA No. 870 of 2019
        -----------------------------------------
          Dated this the 9th day of April, 2021


      For information
                  ORDER

purpose only Service is not complete on the 2nd respondent.

Repeat notice to the 2nd respondent. Issue notice by

affixure as well.

Post after summer vacation.

IA No. 1 of 2019

Heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner/appellant.

2. In WP(C) No. 9400 of 2020, a Full Bench of this

Court vacated the interim order dated 25.03.2020

and subsequent orders passed in the said suo moto

proceedings by judgment dated 01.03.2021. In view

of the said order, the interim order passed in

this case on 06.03.2020 is sought to be extended.

Hence, the interim order dated 06.03.2020 is

revived and extended by three months.

Sd/-

N. ANIL KUMAR JUDGE bka/09.04.2021

/true copy/ Sd/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR