Kerala High Court
Eram Property Network Private ... vs Mather Project Private Limited on 14 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 24TH POUSHA, 1943
OP(C) NO. 50 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 6.1.2022 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT-III,
ERNAKULAM IN I.A.NO.2/2022 IN O.S.NO.13/2022
PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:
ERAM PROPERTY NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED
7/690, CHUNGAM, FEROKE,
KOZHIKODE, PIN- 673631
REP. BY DIRECTOR, AZIM ISMAIL,
AGED 37, S/O P.I SHERIF MUHAMMED
BY ADVS.
S.RENJITH
K.R.PRATHISH
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
1 MATHER PROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED
CORPORATE OFFICE AT MATHER SQUARE,
C BLOCK, 2ND FLOOR, NORTH RAILWAY STATION ROAD,
KOCHI -682 018 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
SALIM M.M, AGED 48, MEETHIYAN
2 ANU JOSEPH
AGED 50 YEARS
W/O JOJOE KARIPPAPARAMBIL JACOB
C.E.O, MATHER PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED
OFFICE AT MATHER SQUARE, C BLOCK, 2ND FLOOR,
NORTH RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KOCHI -682 018
3 SHAFI MATHER
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O K.M.I MATHER,
RESOLUTION APPLICANT OF MATHER PROJECTS PVT LTD
MATHER ESTATE, THEVAKKAL, COCHIN 682021
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.(C) No.50 of 2022
2
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.13/2022 on the file of the
Munsiff Court-III, Ernakulam. The suit has been filed for a
permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents
and their men and agents from obstructing the ingress and
egress and plying of vehicles of the plaintiff and their tenants
and customers to the dedicated car parking area of the plaintiff
in the plaint schedule building and in the common area. Further
a mandatory injunction has also been sought for directing the
defendants to restore the way to the parking area and common
spaces into motorable condition by restoring the tiles which
were laid down in the common area.
2. According to the learned counsel for the
petitioner/plaintiff, along with the suit, I.A.No.2/2022 was filed
under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 for a temporary injunction of restraining the respondents
and their men and agents from obstructing the ingress and
egress and plying of vehicles of the petitioner, their tenants and
customers to the dedicated car parking area of the petitioner in
the plaint schedule building and in the common area till the
O.P.(C) No.50 of 2022
disposal of the suit. But, by the impugned order, the learned
Munsiff passed an order by an ad-interim injunction restraining
the respondents from causing any obstruction to the pedestrian
use of the common area of plaint schedule property by the
plaintiff, their tenants and customers until further orders. It is
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
impugned order passed will cause prejudice to the petitioner and
the relief sought for by the petitioner has actually was not
considered. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner has
never a case with respect to the pedestrian use and its
obstruction by the respondents and the specific case in the I.A.
itself is with respect to the vehicle ingress and egress to the
parking area.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that they have let out the ground-floor and first-floor
to the Tata Westside for conducting their showroom for dresses.
The customers of the petitioner's tenants used to park in the
common area which is on the front yard and also in the
dedicated car parking area of the petitioner. Petitioner
approached the court while there was obstruction from the side
of the respondents for the ingress and egress to the petitioner's
O.P.(C) No.50 of 2022
tenants and customers to the parking area and that obstruction
according to the petitioner is with an intention to obstruct the
petitioner's tenants and customers. But no relief has been
granted with respect to the car parking facility, as sought for by
the petitioner, by the Munsiff. At the same time an interim order
has been granted with respect to pedestrians use which was not
an issue at all. Hence it appears that the order passed by the
Munsiff is improper and irregular and has caused miscarriage of
justice.
4. Hence, the interim injunction already granted is
modified and respondents are restrained from causing any
obstruction to the petitioner and his tenants and customers in
using the 49 earmarked parking area, if at all it is actually
covered by the title deeds of the petitioner, for a period of 15
days. Thereafter, the court below shall pass appropriate orders,
after hearing both sides.
Accordingly, the original Petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
M.R.ANITHA
JUDGE
shg
O.P.(C) No.50 of 2022
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXT.1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.13 OF 2022 FILED BEFORE THE
MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM
EXT.P1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3597/2016 DATED 21.11.2016 OF
THRIKKAKKARA SUB REGISTRY OFFICE.
EXT.P1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3598/2016 DATED 21.11.2016 OF
THRIKKAKKARA SUB REGISTRY OFFICE.
EXT.P1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3599/2016 DATED 21.11.2016 OF
THRIKKAKKARA SUB REGISTRY OFFICE.
EXT.P1(D) TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3600/2016 DATED 21.11.2016 OF
THRIKKAKKARA SUB REGISTRY OFFICE.
EXT.P1(E) TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3601/2016 DATED 21.11.2016 OF
THRIKKAKKARA SUB REGISTRY OFFICE.
EXT.P1(F) TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE
KAKKANAD VILLAGE OFFICE DATED 15.3.2021 (2 NOS)
EXT.P1(G) TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO PLAINTIFF FOR THE YEAR
2021-2022 DATED 7.7.2021
EXT.P1(H) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF BEFORE THE
ACP, THRIKKAKKA THROUGH E MAIL DATED 1.1.2022
EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.2 OF 2022 IN O.S.NO.13 OF 2022 FILED
BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM
EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER DATED 6.1.2022 IN I.A.NO.2
OF 2022 IN O.S.NO.13 OF 2022 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT,
ERNAKULAM
