Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S. No.1803/2025

Case between Hashim.A vs Mohammed Sarhan regarding injunction

Court
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Judge
Smt. Sreelakshmi. C
Order Date
2025-11-01
Duration
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Hashim.A, the plaintiff, filed an interim application for an injunction against the defendant, Mohammed Sarhan, to prevent encroachment on property. The court granted an ad-interim injunction to protect the plaintiff's rights until a specified date.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court granted an ad-interim injunction to prevent the defendants from encroaching on the plaintiff's property until a specified date.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Ad-interim injunction restraining defendants from encroaching on property
Case Type
Injunction
Final Judgment
No
The court granted an ad-interim injunction to prevent the defendants from encroaching on the plaintiff's property until a specified date.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court found sufficient grounds for issuing an injunction to protect the plaintiff's rights over the property.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The court found sufficient grounds for issuing an injunction to protect the plaintiff's rights over the property.
Supporting Evidence
I am satisfied that the delay in issuing notice will defeat the purpose of the suit.

Judgment Evidence:

Hence an ad-interim injunction is granted restraining the defendants/counter petitioner from encroaching into any portion of the plaint schedule property in violation to Building Rules and thereby prejudicing the right and interest of the petitioner over the plaint A schedule property and his peaceful enjoyment of the same until 01.12.2025.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Hashim.A
Party Age
45
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Mohammed Sarhan
Party Age
30
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Smt. Vincy J. Wilson
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. Kiran. P.B
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. Arjun. A.S
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from encroaching into the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
Hence an ad-interim injunction is granted restraining the defendants/counter petitioner from encroaching into any portion of the plaint schedule property in violation to Building Rules...

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Oral Evidence
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Oral evidence was presented during the hearing.
Reference:

Case Classification

Case Type
Injunction
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Hashim.A vs Mohammed Sarhan regarding injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Hashim.A vs Mohammed Sarhan regarding injunction

Quick Facts

Location
Thiruvananthapuram
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Sat, 11/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Sun, 11/30/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
75%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between T. Sathyan vs T.V. Bahulayan Panicker regarding an injunction.
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Injunction Plaintiff Won
Case between Venkittaraman vs V. Subramaniayan et al regarding injunction
Court of Additional Munsiff-I
Injunction Plaintiff Won
Case between Smitha @ Salini vs Soumya. L regarding temporary injunction
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-I
Injunction Plaintiff Won
Case between Kootuvilakath Sakkeena Beevi M. vs Rajan regarding injunction.
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Injunction Plaintiff Won
Case between Anitha Kumari.L.K et al vs Madhu.S et al regarding an ad-interim injunction.
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF- III
Injunction Plaintiff Won