Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J
SANDEEP CHANDRAN – Appellant
Versus
THE FEDERAL BANK LTD. – Respondent
| 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
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
