Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
Original Suit No. 369/2022

Case between Karuthedath Abdul Azeez vs Manoj Kumar.T regarding permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction

Court
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF -II, KOZHIKODE
Judge
Smt.ANJALI. P
Order Date
2025-07-28
Duration
approximately-3 years 21 days
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Karuthedath Abdul Azeez filed a suit against Manoj Kumar.T for permanent prohibitory injunction, mandatory injunction, and recovery of arrears of license fee. The plaintiff claims that the defendant, who was permitted to use the property, has fallen behind on payments and has not vacated the premises properly.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court granted the plaintiff a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant, required the defendant to remove articles from the property, ordered the payment of license fees, and imposed costs on the defendant.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction, mandatory injunction to remove articles, and payment of Rs.1,29,200/-
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court granted the plaintiff a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant, required the defendant to remove articles from the property, ordered the payment of license fees, and imposed costs on the defendant.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff proved ownership of the property and the arrears of license fees.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiff proved ownership of the property and the arrears of license fees.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiff has proved his case. […] the plaintiff owns and licensor of the plaint A schedule property has come up with the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction against the defendant who was his licensee.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is only to be decreed and I do so: 1. The defendant, his men and agents are restrained by way of permanent prohibitory injunction from obstructing the plaintiffs use of the plaint A schedule property, destroying the utility of the plaint A schedule property and from entering into the plaint A schedule property except for the purpose of removing plaint B schedule articles from the plaint A schedule property. 2. The defendant is hereby directed by way of mandatory injunction to remove the plaint B schedule articles from the plaint A schedule property within a period of one month from today. 3. The defendant is hereby directed to pay Rs.1,29,200/- (Rupees one lakh twenty nine thousand two hundred only) to the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of suit till date of realisation. 4. The defendant is also directed to pay costs of the proceedings to the plaintiff.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Karuthedath Abdul Azeez
Party Age
60
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Manoj Kumar.T
Party Age
40
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
License deed dated 01.06.2013, Copy of lawyer notice
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.K.M.Musthafa
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri.Xavior George
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Madhu Mohan
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Restraining the defendant from obstructing the plaintiffs use of the plaint A schedule property.
Evidence:
The defendant, his men and agents are restrained by way of permanent prohibitory injunction from obstructing the plaintiffs use of the plaint A schedule property.
Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Directing the defendant to remove articles from the plaint A schedule property.
Evidence:
The defendant is hereby directed by way of mandatory injunction to remove the plaint B schedule articles from the plaint A schedule property within a period of one month from today.
Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Directing the defendant to pay the arrears of license fee to the plaintiff.
Evidence:
The defendant is hereby directed to pay Rs.1,29,200/- to the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of suit till date of realisation.
Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The defendant is also directed to pay costs of the proceedings to the plaintiff.
Evidence:
I find no reason to deviate from the same.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: License Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Executed between Plaintiff and Defendant for use of the plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Lawyer Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Sent to the defendant regarding the arrears of license fee.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Postal receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proof of sending the lawyer notice to the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A2(a)
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Document outlining the findings of the Advocate Commissioner regarding the condition of the plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.C1

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 2 Kozhikode
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Karuthedath Abdul Azeez vs Manoj Kumar.T regarding permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Karuthedath Abdul Azeez vs Manoj Kumar.T regarding permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction

Quick Facts

Location
Kozhikode
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 2 Kozhikode
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Sun, 06/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Sun, 08/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Kolassery Abdurahim vs Kanjirangal Kareem et al regarding property delivery
Rent Control Court
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between M/s. UCO Bank vs Abhinav.K.P et al regarding dismissal of suit.
MUNSIFF-II, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Girija et al vs Komalam et al regarding partition
MUNSIFF-II, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Fathima Minha.K vs State of Kerala et al regarding dismissal of suit
COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-II, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Dismissed
Case between M Sukumaran vs K. Ahammed et al regarding perpetual prohibitory injunction
Munsiff-II, Kozhikode
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won