The court reinforced that injunction orders are null and void without the inclusion of necessary parties, impacting their enforceability.

Dated this the 9th day of April, 2024 The Original Petition first above referred stems from a judgment in the C.M.A, vacating an order of injunction; and the second, from the common judgment in two other C.M.As, vacating an order in the nature of a mandatory injunction to restore a bunk, which was allegedly demolished in violation of the order of injunction first above referred. A

suit for injunction was preferred by the plaintiffs (petitioners herein) as O.S.No.262/2019 before the Munsiff's Court, Attingal. Along with the suit, the plaintiff moved an application for an ad interim order of injunction, which was allowed, restraining the respondent/defendants (two in number then) from forcefully evicting the plaintiffs from the plaint schedule bunk and its ..4.. premises and also from destructing the scheduled bunk. This order was confirmed after hearing the parties by the learned Munsiff. C.M.A.No.11/2020 was preferred by the defendants in the suit (respondents 1 & 2 in O.P.(C)No.2411/2022 herein), challenging the said order of injunction. The C.M.A. was allowed and the order of injunction was vacated, which judgment is under challenge in O.P. (C)No.2411/2022.

2. In the meantime, the bunk was demolished and the plaintiffs filed another application for injunction directing the defendants to restore/reinstall the demolished bunk.

I.A.No.4066/2019 for the said purpose was allowed by the learned Munsiff. Challenging the same, the defendants filed C.M.A.No.12/2020. A third person, who was impleaded as the additional 3rd defendant in the suit, preferred C.M.A.No.24/2020, challenging the mandatory injunction referred above. Both the C.M.As were heard together by the ..5.. First Appellate Court and the same were allowed, with result, the direction to restore/reinstall the bunk was set aside. The aggrieved plaintiffs are the petitioners in both the original petitions.

3. Heard Sri.R Gopan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.R Chethan Krishna, for respondents 1 & 2 and Sri.Prasanth Krishna for 3rd respondent.

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this court finds little merit in the Original Petitions.

The claim of the plaintiffs/petitioners is that, they are tenants conducting a bunk shop in the scheduled property on the strength of a consent deed executed by one Shibili, the husband of the first defendant and the father of the second. Apprehending forceful dispossession by defendants 1 and 2 (mother & son), the suit was filed. The defendants filed ..6.. counter affidavit opposing the injunction sought for and contenting inter alia that as per partition deed no.1479/2018 of the SRO, Attingal, the bunk is situated in the property allotted to the additional 3rd defendant, another son of the 1st defendant. A copy of the partition deed was produced. Nevertheless, the plaintiffs took no steps to implead the additional 3rd defendant. Thus the impugned order of injunction was passed without hearing the additional 3rd defendant, who is the owner of the scheduled property, where the bunk is situated. One of the reasons cited by the learned Sub Judge in the judgment in C.M.A.No.11/2020 to set aside the order of injunction is the above fact regarding non-joinder of necessary parties. In addition to the same, the learned Sub Judge found that the original Ext.A1

consent deed, was not produced by the plaintiffs.

The landlord-tenant relationship was denied by the defendants in the suit. According to them, the plaintiffs were their employees. Failure to ..7.. produce the original of Ext.A1, coupled with the absence of any document evidencing payment of rent persuaded the learned Sub Judge to disbelieve the plaintiffs and to probabilize the version of the defendants. Accordingly, the order of injunction was vacated by the judgment in O.P.(C)No.2411/2022.

5. Coming to O.P.(C)No.2421/2022, a common judgment was rendered in C.M.A.Nos. 12 & 24 of 2020 by the learned Sub Judge. It was found that the violation of th