Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S. No. 1197/2024

Case between Advocate Jacob Pulikkan et al vs Victor P S et al regarding injunction

Court
Court of Munsiff, Ernakulam
Judge
Smt. Needi.K.Dinamany
Order Date
2025-09-19
Duration
approximately-1 year 0 days
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiffs are seeking a mandatory and permanent injunction against the defendants regarding noise and food smell from a restaurant. They request the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the property and assess the situation.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The petition for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner was granted to inspect the property for specified points, except one regarding noise pollution, which was already assessed.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Appointment of Advocate Commissioner
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The petition for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner was granted to inspect the property for specified points, except one regarding noise pollution, which was already assessed.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court found the inspection necessary for proper adjudication of the suit.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The court found the inspection necessary for proper adjudication of the suit.
Supporting Evidence
The court is satisfied that the inspection is necessary for proper adjudication of the suit.

Judgment Evidence:

In the light of the above discussion, the petition is allowed.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Advocate Jacob Pulikkan
Party Age
80
Relation
S/o late Joseph
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Abu K Thomas
Party Age
47
Relation
S/o Thomas
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Unnikrishnan K S @ UnniSivapal
Party Age
54
Relation
S/o Sivapal
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Dimple Paul
Party Age
49
Relation
W/o Biju
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Victor P S
Party Age
57
Relation
S/o Stanley
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
M/s CHILLY PEPPER GOURMET KITCHENS Pvt. Ltd.
Relation
represented by its CEO
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
State Of Kerala
Relation
represented by The Chief Secretary
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Corporation of Cochin
Relation
represented by its Secretary
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
The Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
S K Balachandran
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Deepa N D
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
K M Biju
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Philip T Varghese
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Thomas T Varghese
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Achu Shuba Abraham
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Nitya R
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Amala Purushothaman
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Rineesha Rajkumar
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Urmila M G
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Teenu Joseph
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Amritha K H
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Mary Aleena Surrao
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Maria Angel
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to conduct an inspection of the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
The petition is allowed on the following terms: 1) Advocate Ryan Augustine Shaji is appointed as the Commissioner in this case.
Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Partly Granted
Description:
Inspection of the plaint schedule property except for point No.3.
Evidence:
The Commissioner shall conduct inspection with respect to points stated in commission application except point No.3.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Commissioner Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
The court refers to the necessity of appointing an Advocate Commissioner to conduct an inspection of the plaint schedule properties.
Reference:

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Noise pollution
Case Code
Case between Advocate Jacob Pulikkan et al vs Victor P S et al regarding injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Advocate Jacob Pulikkan et al vs Victor P S et al regarding injunction

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Case Filed
Thu, 09/19/2024 - 12:00
Case Closed
From
Mon, 09/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Tue, 09/30/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
75%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases

Case between Garden View Apartment owners Association vs Ansal River Dale owners Association et al regarding Restoration Petition
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Shanoj R vs Joseph Augustin et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between M/s Indo Quartz vs M/s Ray Engineering Pvt. Ltd. et al regarding petition under Order 38 Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure.
COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between M/s. Canton Residency Pvt. Ltd. vs Kalamassery Municipality regarding dismissal of suit
THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Mrs. Julie Sebastian vs SREECHAND SPECIALITY HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. regarding settlement of claims.
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won