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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 8183

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J
SANDEEP CHANDRAN – Appellant
Versus
THE FEDERAL BANK LTD. – Respondent
OP(C) NO. 102 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT. M.R.MINI, SRI. VINOD RAVINDRANATH, SMT. MEENA.A., SRI. ANISH ANTONY ANATHAZHATH, SRI. THAREEQ ANVER, SMT. NIVEDHITHA PREM.V, SRI. ANANTHAKRISHNAN A. KARTHA, SMT. MARIYA JOSEPH, SMT. AMEERA JOJO, SRI. STEPHEN V THOMAS, SRI. T.KRISHNANUNNI
For the Respondents: SRI. MOHAN JACOB GEORGE, SMT. P.V.PARVATHY, SMT. REENA THOMAS, SMT. NIGI GEORGE, SRI. ANANTHU V.LAL, SRI. BRAHMA R.K., SMT. SHERIN VARGHESE, SRI. ANTONY THOMAS MOHAN

The court emphasizes the consideration of interlocutory applications prior to service of notices to ensure rights are not prejudiced.

Headnote:This judgment concerns OP

(C) No. 102 of 2026, wherein the petitioner seeks a permanent prohibitory injunction against the Bank from dispossessing him from the property. The court finds that the interlocutory application is pending and orders that the Sub Judge consider the application and make a decision within two weeks, ensuring that the respondents do not take possession meanwhile. The court refrains from expressing opinions on the case merits.

Table of Content
1. controversy surrounding the notice and application. (Para 2 , 4)
2. court observations on the process. (Para 3 , 5)
3. court's directive on the interlocutory application. (Para 6)

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S No.132 of 2025 on the files of the Sub Court, Thrissur. Respondents 2 to 4 are respectively defendants 3, 1 and 2 therein. The suit is filed inter alia for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the Bank from dispossessing the petitioner from the plaint schedule property. Ext.P5 is the application for temporary injunction.

2. This Court, on 16.01.2026, issued notice by special messenger to respondents 3 and 4. The learned counsel for the Bank undertook that possession of the property will not be taken till the next posting date. The said undertaking is being extended from time to time.

3. The notice issued to the 3rd respondent has been returned with the endorsement “no such addressee”. Though notice has been served on the 4th respondent, there is no appearance. It is to be noted that the address of the 3rd respondent in the original petition and in the plaint is the same.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P5 application is not considered since notice has not been served on the 3rd respondent. It is contended that interlocutory application can be heard in connection with an interim order even before service of notice on the 3rd respondent. The petitioner apprehends his dispossession from the property pending the suit.

5. Heard Sri.T.Krishnanunni, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Mohan Jacob George, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2.

6. Since Ext.P5 interlocutory application is pending consideration, I feel it appropriate to direct the learned Sub Judge to consider Ext.P5 interlocutory application and pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks from today. Till such time an order is passed, respondents 1 and 2 shall not take possession of the property. It is made clear that, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and that the learned Sub Judge shall pass orders uninfluenced by the directions hereinabove.

The original petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

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 Back to top