A party seeking an interlocutory injunction must demonstrate a prima facie case and the risk of injustice, while acting with clean hands.

JUDGMENT

The challenge in this Original Petition is to Ext.P8 judgment dated 14.07.2022, passed by the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Karunagappally in CMA.No.12/2021. The plaintiff in the suit is the petitioner. The defendants are the respondents.

2. The plaintiff instituted the Original Suit for a permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondents- the State and its ofÏcers and the Secretary, Thazhava Grama Panchayath. The plaintiff pleaded that he is the owner in possession of A schedule property and the access to his property is through B schedule property, a public pathway. The plaintiff pleaded that B schedule property runs through the Puramboke land. Therefore, the plaintiff prayed for an interim prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents from closing the pathway.

3. The defendants resisted the application, contending that no such pathway exists and the attempt of the plaintiff is to grab a portion of the Government puramboke land.

4. The trial Court granted an interim prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the user of B schedule pathway till the disposal of the suit. The respondents challenged the interim prohibitory injunction passed by the trial Court by filing CMA.No.12/2021 before the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Karunagappally. The Appellate Court set aside the order of interim injunction granted by the trial Court and dismissed I.A.No.2372/2019.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plaintiff has been using B schedule way as a cartable way for the last 48 years.

7. The learned counsel for the defendants/respondents submitted that a pathway is in existence there and the Government and local authority have no intention to close that pathway. It is further submitted that the attempt of the plaintiff/petitioner is to convert the existing pathway into a cartable way.

8. The Subordinate Judge’s Court considered the rival contentions and came to the conclusion that the intention of the plaintiff/petitioner is to fraudulently obtain a way to the puramboke land, based on the following observations:-

“17. Upon perusing the Ext. A1 sale deed No.307/1975 it is found that there is no public way on the southern side of the property obtained by the plaintiff in Old Sy. No.7630A of Thazhava village as per the said deed. If there is a public way in existence on the southern side during 1975 then definitely it might have been found a place in the southern eluka in the Ext.A1 sale deed. In fact there is a public way on the eastern side of the property obtained by the plaintiff as the A schedule in the Ext. A1 sale deed and it is evident from the eastern eluka stated in the Ext. A1 sale deed itself. Hence as per the Ext. A1 sale deed plaintiff has direct road access to the eastern public road from his plaint A schedule property obtained as per the Ext.A1 Sale Deed but the said fact is willfully suppressed in the plaint filed in this case. Therefore it is found that Ext. A1 sale deed itself would prove that the contention raised by the plaintiff that he has no other road access to his plaint A schedule property except the plaint B schedule way is only a false contention. Plaintiff has no case that his property on the eastern side was transferred to somebody else. Admittedly the southern eluka of the plaint A schedule property in the Ext.A1 sale deed and the pleadings in the plaint proves that Government puramboke land situates on the immediate southern side of his property. Hence it is found that the plaint A schedule property descriptions with regard to th