Case Summary
The plaintiffs, Mallika.P.I and Abdul Azeez.U.P, are seeking mandatory and permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants, Vimal Sebastian and Firoz, due to an advertisement structure being erected that poses danger to their properties. The defendants are accused of violating safety rules with the construction.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Mandatory injunction to remove the metallic structures and perpetual prohibitory injunction against erecting advertising board.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering the defendants to remove the metallic structure erected for advertising and restraining them from further constructions.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiffs provided sufficient evidence that the construction posed an imminent danger to their properties and violated safety regulations.
The plaintiffs provided sufficient evidence that the construction posed an imminent danger to their properties and violated safety regulations.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiffs provided sufficient evidence that the construction posed an imminent danger to their properties and violated safety regulations.
The plaintiffs provided sufficient evidence that the construction posed an imminent danger to their properties and violated safety regulations.
Supporting Evidence
The apprehension of the plaintiff is proved by the oral testimony of the PW1. The suit is liable to be decreed and I do so.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, suit is decreed as follows: 1. Defendants their men and agents are hereby directed by a decree of mandatory injunction to remove the metallic structures in the plaint C schedule property within 45 days from today failing which the plaintiff can execute the decree through the process of the court and realize the costs from the defendants. 2. The defendants are restrained by way of permanent prohibitory injunction from erecting advertising board upon the metallic frame work in the plaint C schedule property. 3. The defendants shall pay costs of the proceedings to the plaintiffs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Mallika.P.I
- Party Age
- 62
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Abdul Azeez.U.P
- Party Age
- 64
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Vimal Sebastian
- Party Age
- 40
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Firoz
- Party Age
- 37
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Order No. G. O. (Ms) No. 06/2016/Trans of Transport (D) Department dated 02.02.2016, Certified copy of deed No.4930/2007 of SRO Chevayur dated 18.10.2007, Certified copy of deed No.4931/2007 of SRO Chevayur dated 18.10.2007, Copy of complaint given to Secretary of Kozhikode Corporation dated 22.08.2024.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri.L.S.Bhagavaldas
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Law Firm
- Punya.T
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Diljith.C
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Directing the defendants to remove the metallic structures.
Evidence:
Defendants their men and agents are hereby directed by a decree of mandatory injunction to remove the metallic structures in the plaint C schedule property within 45 days from today.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Restraining the defendants from erecting the advertising board.
Evidence:
The defendants are restrained by way of permanent prohibitory injunction from erecting advertising board upon the metallic frame work in the plaint C schedule property.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Order
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Relevant for establishing the violation of advertising rules.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Establishes ownership of the property by the first plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Establishes ownership of the property by the second plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Complaint
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Evidence of complaint about the construction activity.
Reference:
Ext.A4
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 Mallika.P.I vs Vimal Sebastian regarding mandatory injunction and permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Mallika.P.I vs Vimal Sebastian regarding mandatory injunction and permanent prohibitory injunction