2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 31193
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R.Ravi, J
Jeril Mary John – Appellant
Versus
Shivsa Granite LLP – Respondent
OP(C) 2611 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Luke J Chirayil, Navaneeth Krishnan P.K., Neha Ramakrishnan, Jacob Victor, Vysakh C.S., Zainudheen P.
For the Respondents: Philip J.Vettickattu, Suraj Kumar D., Neenu Bernath, Saju S. Dominic, Manu Santhosh, O.M. Shalina, S. Unnikrishnan
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Amendment of Pleadings and Temporary Injunction
Headnote
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. requirement to prioritize amendment applications over interlocutory injunction petitions when fundamental errors exist in pleadings. (Para 1 , 2) |
JUDGMENT
This Original Petition has been filed seeking a direction to dispose of Ext.P3 application and to keep Ext.P2 proceedings pending until Ext.P3 is considered and disposed of.
2. The petitioner is the plaintiff. The suit is one for permanent prohibitory injunction. Ext.P2 petition was filed seeking a temporary prohibitory injunction. Since it was noticed that the survey number of the property is wrong, an amendment application was filed as Ext.P3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the trial court is not considering the amendment application before consideration of application for injunction. It is submitted that unless the amendment application is considered before the injunction application, no purpose would served since there is admittedly a mistake in the survey number. I find justification in the above contention.
3. This Original Petition is allowed.
The Munsiff Court, Kottarakkara is directed to hear and dispose of Ext.P3 application before disposing of Ext.P2 application for injunction. The respondents may file their objection to the amendment application, if not already filed.