Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 33466
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R.Ravi, J
Ajitha – Appellant
Versus
Harrisons Malayalam Plantation Ltd – Respondent
OP(C) No. 2836 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Tessy Jose, M.A.Zohra, Akbar Zaheer A.N.
For the Respondents: M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, K.John Mathai, Joson Manavalan, Kuryan Thomas, Paulose C. Abraham, Raja Kannan
The High Court may decline to interfere with interlocutory injunctions in pending appeals, instead directing the lower appellate court to expedite the final disposal of the appeal to serve the interests of justice.
Headnote:The case involves a challenge to an interlocutory order of injunction passed by a subordinate court during the pendency of an appeal. The central facts concern a disputed property where the defendants sought to contest an injunction restraining their access and activities on the site. The court declined to interfere with the merits of the interlocutory order, noting that it was made at the appellate stage. The primary issue raised was the propriety of the injunction order while the main appeal was still pending. The court observed that it was not appropriate to adjudicate the merits of the interlocutory findings at this juncture and that the interests of justice would be best served by an expedited disposal of the pending appeal. The court ultimately disposed of the petition by directing the appellate court to resolve the pending appeal within a period of two months, while refraining from expressing any opinion on the merits of the challenged findings.
JUDGMENT
The Petitioners have challenged Ext.P10 order whereby the Sub Court, Sulthan Bathery has passed an order of injunction, restraining them from trespassing into the petition scheduled property, from committing any act of waste, doing construction work in the petition schedule property and interfering in any manner with the respondents’ right to peaceful possession and enjoyment of petition schedule property.
2. The petitioners are the defendants in the suit.
The trial court dismissed the application for temporary injunction against which the appeal was filed by the respondent. The appeal is still pending. The impugned order has been issued in the pending appeal. The petitioners claim that they are in possession of the property.
Having gone through the reasons stated in the impugned order, this Court cannot interfere with the interlocutory order at this stage and interest of justice will be served if the appeal is disposed of at the earliest.
In the above circumstances, this appeal is disposed of directing the Sub Court, Sulthan Bathery to consider and dispose of CMA No.6/2025 at the earliest at any rate within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the findings in the impugned order. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Sub Court, Sulthan Bathery immediately. Parties are directed to appear before the Sub Court, Sulthan Bathery on 10.06.2026.
