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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S. No. 1233 /2017

Case between V Devashikhamony vs Abdul Nazar Sait et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction

Court
Court of Munsiff, Ernakulam
Judge
Smt. Needi.K.Dinamany
Order Date
2025-07-16
Duration
approximately-3 years 1 month

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The case involves a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the plaint A schedule property. The plaintiff contends that new documents obtained recently are vital for substantiating his case.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court found no merit in the plaintiff's petitions to reopen evidence and to accept documents, dismissing both requests. Parties shall bear their respective costs.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
The petitions were dismissed due to the lack of merit and untimeliness.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, petition is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their respective costs.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

V Devashikhamony (70 years) 11544, Near Paltas Lane, Mattancherry, Kochi 682002

Defendants

Abdul Nazar Sait (47 years) 40/473, Munjappilly Bunglow, Jews Street, College P O, Ernakulam The Additional Thahasildar (Age not specified years) Taluk Office, Ernakulam- 682011 The Taluk Surveyor (Age not specified years) Taluk office, Ernakulam, Kochi- 682011 The Village Officer (Age not specified years) Ernakulam Village, Ernakulam, 682011

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Plaintiff requested a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the property.
Evidence:
The suit is only for injunction and there is no prayer for recovery of possession or declaration.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Oral Evidence
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The plaintiff was examined as PW1.
Reference:
Document Type: Documents
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
These exhibits were marked as part of the plaintiff's evidence.
Reference:
Exts.A1 to A8
Document Type: Documents
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
These exhibits were marked as part of the first defendant's evidence.
Reference:
Exts.B1 to B7
Document Type: Documents
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
These exhibits were marked as part of the second defendant's evidence.
Reference:
Exts.B8 to B17
Document Type: Documents
Submitted By: Unknown
Relevance:
The plaintiff sought to accept these documents related to his case.
Reference:
Documents produced in WP(C) 2285/13

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Tue, 07/11/2017 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
75%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases