Skip to main content
Niyamam AI- Beta Niyamam AI- Beta

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S No. 931/2025

Case between Abi Raghavan vs Smitha Paul et al regarding Temporary Injunction

Court
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Sri. Rohit Nandakumar
Order Date
2025-11-25
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The petitioner, Abi Raghavan, claims to be the lawful tenant of a property and alleges harassment and defamation by the defendants. The case involves an application for a temporary injunction against the defendants who allegedly denied him access.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court dismissed the petition filed by Abi Raghavan seeking a temporary injunction as he failed to establish himself as a valid tenant.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Injunction
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
The petitioner did not establish a prima facie case that he is a valid tenant in the property.

Judgment Evidence:

The petition deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed. The ad interim order granted in favour of the petitioner stands lifted.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Abi Raghavan (29 years) Apartment No. 12 A, Heera Cyber Views, Info Park Road, Edachira, Kakkanadu, Ernakulam, Pin: 682 032

Defendants

Smitha Paul (40 years) Athirampuzha, Kottayam, Pin: 686 562 The Secretary, Heera Cyber Views Owners Association (Age not specified years) Heera Cyber Views, Info Park Road, Edachira, Kakkanadu, Ernakulam, Pin: 682 030 The Manager, Heera Cyber Views Owners Association (Age not specified years) Heera Cyber Views, Info Park Road, Edachira, Kakkanadu, Ernakulam, Pin: 682 030 The Caretaker, Heera Cyber Views Owners Association (Age not specified years) Heera Cyber Views, Info Park Road, Edachira, Kakkanadu, Ernakulam, Pin: 682 030 Mr. Shiju Pankaj (Age not specified years) Heera Cyber Views, Info Park Road, Edachira, Kakkanadu, Ernakulam, Pin: 682 030

Reliefs

Relief Type: Temporary Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
The plaintiff sought a temporary prohibitory injunction against the defendants.
Evidence:
The petitioner cannot have a prima facie case, balance of convenience or possibility of irreparable injury in his favour to warrant a relief as sought for.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Lease Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was presented to support the plaintiff's claim of being the lawful tenant of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Legal Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was used to demonstrate the complaints made by the plaintiff against the defendants.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Reply Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was produced as a response to the legal notice sent by the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Lease Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was intended to establish the claim of tenancy by the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Power of Attorney
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This document was presented by the defendants to assert their authority and position in the matter.
Reference:
Ext.B1

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
95%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases