SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 11848

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.SOMARAJAN, J
GEORGY K. MATHEWS – Appellant
Versus
PANDANAD IMMANUEL MARTHOMA CHURCH, – Respondent


Advocates:
BY ADV BABU PAUL

JUDGMENT

Since it is a matter under Section 80 (2) of CPC and the non compliance of mandate thereunder, notice to the party respondents 1 to 6 is hereby dispensed with. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

2. A suit was filed with a prayer for permanent prohibitory injunction as well as mandatory injunction pertaining to an illegal construction made over the government land. Interim application for injunction was also submitted so as to stall further construction of building over the property. But, the learned Munsiff framed two primary issues as to (1) whether the petitioner in this case is seeking urgent and immediate relief against the respondent Nos.7 to 14; and (2) relief and costs, and answered the issue No.1 in the following lines.

“In this petition no right of the petitioner has been infringed and no urgent or immediate relief has been claimed against the Government. Hence I don't find any merit in the petition and directed to return the plaint for presentation before the court after complying the requirements under Sec.80(1) of Code of Civil procedure.”

3. First of all, when a suit was instituted along with an interim injunction applica

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top