Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 39963
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. NATARAJAN, J
DR. JAGADEESWARAN – Appellant
Versus
NESAMANI – Respondent
OP(C) NO. 1101 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.A.PARVATHI MENON, SRI.P.SANJAY, SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR, SHRI.P.K.MURALYKRISHNAN, SRI.PAUL VARGHESE (PALLATH), SRI.KIRAN NARAYANAN, SHRI.RAHUL RAJ P., SHRI.MUHAMMED BILAL.V.A, SMT.MEERA R. MENON
For the Respondents: SRI.G.SUDHEER, SRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN (H-308)
The court emphasized proper reevaluation of conflicting orders concerning tenancy and the necessity for timely resolution by the appellate court.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 39 Rule 1, Order 41 Rule 5 - Injunctions in tenancy disputes - The petitioner sought an injunction against respondents to prevent eviction and interference in operating a clinic, asserting rights under a lease agreement - The Respondents counterclaimed for similar injunction against the petitioner. The trial and first appellate court issued conflicting orders on injunctions, leading to this original petition seeking reconsideration. (Paras 1, 2, 3, 6)
(B) Jurisdiction of appellate courts - The court observed that despite a pending appeal, the first appellate court must reevaluate injuries and relevant orders on rights to enforce and protect possession before the continuation of the lease dispute - Directions issued for timely resolution by the first appellate court, reiterating the importance of adhering to existing injunctions. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner entered a lease for a clinic, and subsequent disputes arose with the respondents regarding rights and injunctions, leading to inconsistent orders by various courts.
Findings of Court:
The court emphasized the need for the first appellate court to comprehensively assess prior orders and expedite trial resolution within a set timeline.
Issues: The key issues involved evaluating the conflicting orders from the trial and appellate courts, particularly in light of concurrent claims and rights concerning the property lease.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled for cautious reassessment of orders affecting the parties' rights under existing leases and prior injunctions, underlining the urgency for appellate review and timely adjudication.
Result: Original petition allowed in part, dissenting the inappropriate order by the lower appellate court.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the petitioner's claim involves the continuation of lease and injunctions against evictions. (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. the appellate review requires careful reassessment of lower court orders and timely resolution. (Para 2 , 6) |
| 3. conflicting orders require judicial review to ensure proper enforcement of tenant rights. (Para 5 , 7) |
The Original petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for issuing directing to the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara to reconsider the Ext.P7, the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner appellant in C.M.A.No. 7/2025.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner said the tenant under the scheduled premises obtained a lease from the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for the period of 5 years from 2022 to 2027 for running the clinic and public hospital for treating the cancer patients by growing the herbal plants. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are said to be the daughter and son-in-law of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 trying to interfere along with the respondents No.2, therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit against the respondent in O.S.No. 763/2023 and also filed an application for an interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 of C.P.C., where the Trial court granted an ad interim injunction against the respondent by restricting the respondent from interfering with the said premises, obstructing the functioning of the hospital running there, and destroying the herbal plants planted by them in the premises by force. And notice has been issued to the respondent.
4. Subsequently, the defendants/respondents appeared and filed a written statement along with the counterclaim under Order VIII Rule 6 A of C.P.C. Along with the counterclaim, they also filed an application, I.A. No. 5/2025, for seeking an injunction against the plaintiff. The Trial court said to be allowed the application and passed the order of injunction against the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed C.M.ANo.7/2025 before the Sub Court, Neyyatinkara, and along with the Civil Miscellaneous appeal an interlocutory application was also filed under Order 41 Rule 5 of C.P.C. The first appellate court allowed the application, restraining the respondent, that is, the defendant, from forcefully evicting the petitioner from the suit premises until further orders. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has seriously contended that though the petitioner sought an injunction against the respondent/defendant for not only restraining them from forcefully evicting and interfering in the enjoyment of the scheduled premises as lessee but also an injunction not to interfere with planting the herbal plants and running the hospital but the same was not granted by the first appellate court. Therefore, this Court called for interference for directing the first appellate court to reconsider the order under challenge. Hence prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also further contends that the ad interim injunction obtained by the petitioner in I.A.No.1/2023 is intact, but ignoring the said order, the Trial court allowed the application filed by the defendant in the counterclaim, thereby committing an error in passing the orders in I.A.No.5/2025. When the same was challenged before the first appellate court, the first appellate court only passed the partial order but did not grant a proper injunction in infavour of the plaintiff, hence prayed for allowing the petition.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent objected to the petition mainly on the ground that while the ad interim petitioner counsel argued in respect of the injunction granted by the same court, which was considered by the Trial court and passed the order in favour of the defendants, therefore, the order passed by the Trial court on I.A.No.1/202
