Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS 130/2024

Case between UNNIKKORACHAM VEETTIL ABDULLA vs THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY et al regarding injunction restraining trespass.

Court
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, NADAPURAM
Judge
Sri. Yadukrishnan. B
Order Date
2025-10-06
Duration
Case Code No.
130
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The case involves UNNIKKORACHAM VEETTIL ABDULLA who has filed a suit for injunction against the Kerala Water Authority and others. The plaintiff seeks to restrain the defendants from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and installing pipelines.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The petition filed by the defendants to remit the commission report is dismissed. The court found no necessity to remit the commission report and costs were awarded.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The petition filed by the defendants to remit the commission report is dismissed. The court found no necessity to remit the commission report and costs were awarded.
Key Reasoning:
The court found that the petition to remit the commission report was not necessary as the identity of the plaint schedule property was not disputed.
Why Defendant Won:
Not available
Supporting Evidence
The court found no necessity to remit the commission report since the identity of the plaint schedule property was not disputed by defendants.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, IA 10/2025 is dismissed with costs.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
UNNIKKORACHAM VEETTIL ABDULLA
Party Age
60
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
Relation
Represented by
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
Relation
Represented by
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
Relation
Represented by
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. Ali. V
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. Gimmy George
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Rejected
Description:
The petition is only to be dismissed with costs.
Evidence:
Therefore, in the light of discussions the petition is only to be dismissed with costs.

Documents & Evidence

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Nadapuram
Common Reasons
Unauthorized occupation
Case Code
OS
Case Code Year
2024

Quick Facts

Location
Nadapuram
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Nadapuram
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Mon, 09/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Wed, 12/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
75%

Involved Entities

Government

Similar Cases

Case between MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA et al vs SANDEEPAN regarding realization of money.
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, NADAPURAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between KERALA GRAMIN BANK vs SARADA. A. K regarding realization of money
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, NADAPURAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between CHANDRAN vs SECRETARY et al regarding petition dismissal for default
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, NADAPURAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between N. K. Chandran vs SECRETARY, NADAPURAM GRAMAPANCHAYATH regarding suit dismissal for default
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, NADAPURAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Punnya Ranjith vs State of Kerala et al regarding suit dismissal
COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-I, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Defendant Won