Case Summary
Aseeb filed a petition for a temporary prohibitory injunction against Nahas and others after his injunction suit was dismissed. The petitioner fears obstruction of access to his property.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Stay on the operation of the judgment for one month.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court granted the petitioner's request for a stay on the operation of the judgement for one month to facilitate filing an appeal.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The petitioner demonstrated imminent threat of access obstruction, justifying the need for an interim stay.
The petitioner demonstrated imminent threat of access obstruction, justifying the need for an interim stay.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The petitioner demonstrated imminent threat of access obstruction, justifying the need for an interim stay.
The petitioner demonstrated imminent threat of access obstruction, justifying the need for an interim stay.
Supporting Evidence
Considering the normal delay in getting the copies of judgment and decree for the purpose of appeal, I find the apprehension of the petitioner is genuine.
Judgment Evidence:
Hence I am inclined to grant a stay of operation of decree for a period of one month from the date of this order.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Aseeb
- Party Age
- 65
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Nahas
- Party Age
- 63
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Fawas
- Party Age
- 41
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Umaiba
- Party Age
- 67
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Fanseena Fayas
- Party Age
- 38
- Relation
- D/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Manoj P Kunjachan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sunil Jacob
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- P Haridas
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Biju Hariharan
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Shijimol M Mathew
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Shijin P C
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Rishikesh Haridas
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Stay of operation of the decree for a period of one month to allow the petitioner to file an appeal.
Evidence:
Hence in my opinion, it is only just and equitable that an appropriate interim order has to be passed in favour of the petitioner so that the right of the petitioner to file an appeal against the decree urgently and move the Appellate Court for appropriate interim orders, shall not be frustrated.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Court Judgment
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The judgment dated 23/06/2025 is referenced as it is the basis for the application seeking a stay on its operation.
Reference:
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Aseeb vs Nahas et al regarding injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Aseeb vs Nahas et al regarding injunction