Sumal Raj vs Himal Raj
2021 Latest Caselaw 2481 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

    THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 1ST MAGHA, 1942

                    OP(C).No.433 OF 2018(O)

JUDGMENT DATED 06/12/2027 IN CMA 20/2017 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
                   COURT-II,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

                          ------------


PETITIONER/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:

             SUMAL RAJ
             S/O.ARUL RAJ, T.C.44/452(3), HOLY CROSS,
             MUTTATHARA VILLAGE, VALLAKKADAVU P.O,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695008.

             BY ADV. SRI.BASANT BALAJI

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:

      1      HIMAL RAJ
             S/O.ARUL RAJ, APRA-5C, ARAPPURA LANE,CHENNILODE,
             VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695011.

      2      FAMAL RAJ
             S/O.ARUL RAJ, T.C.44/458, HOLY CROSS,
             MUTTATHARA VILLAGE, VALLAKKADAVU P.O,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695008.

             R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.M.SAIDU MUHAMMED
             R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.D.GANESH KUMAR
             R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHABEERALI

     THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.01.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                    SATHISH NINAN, J.
          ==================
                 O. P. (C) No.433 of 2018
          ==================
         Dated this the 21st day of January, 2021

                          JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the plaintiff in a suit for

permanent prohibitory injunction against interference with the business in the plaint

schedule property. Along with the suit, he filed IA

7562/2016 seeking an interim injunction on similar

lines. The application was dismissed by the trial

court. Challenging the said order, the petitioner

filed CMA 20/2017. The appellate court affirmed the

order of the trial court. The orders are under

challenge in this Original Petition.

2. This original petition is of the year 2018.

There is no interim order passed in the original

petition. The suit is of the year 2016. It would be

sufficient if the suit itself is tried and disposed

of expeditiously.

3. Accordingly, this original petition is

disposed of directing the Additional Munsiff's

Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram, to try and dispose of O. P. (C) No.433 of 2018

the suit OS 1641/2016 as expeditiously as possible

and at any rate before the court closes for

Christmas Vacation 2021. Needless to say that the

trial shall be uninfluenced by any findings and

observations entered in the interlocutory

proceedings.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

kns/-

//True Copy//

P.S. to Judge OP(C).No.433 OF 2018(O)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO 1641/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF 1, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INJUNCTION APPLICATION FILED AS I.A 7562/2017

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY RESPONDENTS

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT 1 AND 2 TO I.A 7562/2017.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/3/2017 IN IA NO 7562/2016 IN OS NO 1641/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF 1 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6/12/2017 IN C.M.A NO.20/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE II THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE CITY CORPORATION DATED 16/11/2009

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT DEED EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND THE PETITIONERS PARENTS

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DTD 7/4/2010

-------------------