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
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
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.
Key Reasoning:
The petitions were dismissed due to the lack of merit and untimeliness.
The petitions were dismissed due to the lack of merit and untimeliness.
Why Defendant Won:
Not available
Not available
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner did not try to produce the same even at the time of trial and the present petition to produce those documents after lapse of almost two years after closure of plaintiff’s evidence is only without merits and a delay tactics.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, petition is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their respective costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- V Devashikhamony
- Party Age
- 70
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Abdul Nazar Sait
- Party Age
- 47
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- The Additional Thahasildar
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- The Taluk Surveyor
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- The Village Officer
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- V Devashikhamony
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Bar Registration
- 11544
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- K V Jayachandran
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Manoj G Krishnan
- Appearance Type
- Government Pleader
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
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between V Devashikhamony vs Abdul Nazar Sait et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between V Devashikhamony vs Abdul Nazar Sait et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction