Skip to main content
Niyamam AI- Beta Niyamam AI- Beta

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S No. 467/2025

Case between P.J. George alias Josy vs Mohan Zachariya Mathews et al regarding interim injunction.

Court
THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Sri. Rohit Nandakumar
Order Date
2025-06-19
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

P.J. George alias Josy, the plaintiff, seeks an interim injunction against Mohan Zachariya Mathews and others, who are accused of causing nuisance by dumping waste on the plaintiff's property. The defendants argue they have legal rights to the property under a lease agreement.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an interim injunction, stating that the plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case or balance of convenience in his favor. The current status quo on the property was allowed to continue.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of a prima facie case.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, IA stands dismissed. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs to the petition.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

P.J. George alias Josy (62 years) Pallath House, Vennala, Ponnurunni Kara, Edapally South Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District, PIN – 682 028

Defendants

Mohan Zachariya Mathews (66 years) Mamkoottathil, Alinchuvadu, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District, PIN – 682 028 Shirly Mohan Zachariya Mathews (63 years) Mamkoottathil, Alinchuvadu, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District, PIN- 682 028 Nidhin Mathew Zachariya (38 years) Mamkoottathil, Alinchuvadu, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District, PIN – 682 028

Reliefs

Relief Type: Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
The plaintiff sought an interim order of injunction.
Evidence:
The plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case or balance of convenience or possibility of an irreparable injury being caused to him.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Deed of Lease Agreement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Marked as a copy of the lease agreement for consideration in the petition.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Deed Lease Agreement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Marked as a copy of the lease agreement for consideration in the petition.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Copy of Plaint in O.S 369/2025
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Marked for consideration in the petition.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Copy of Injunction Petition
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Marked for consideration in the petition.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Copy of Injunction Order and Schedule in O.S 369/2025
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Marked for consideration in the petition.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Copy of Petition in RCP 222/2019
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Marked for consideration in the petition.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type: Copy of Petition in RCP 223/2019
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Marked for consideration in the petition.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type: Interim Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Marked for consideration in the petition.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Marked for consideration in the petition.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Marked for consideration in the petition.
Reference:
Ext.C3

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam District
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
85%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases