Aravindaksha Menon vs Devayani Advocate - JAGADEESH K — 200029/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Order43Rule1. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 30th March 2026.

Case disposed

CMA - CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL

CNR: KLTR130004762025

e-Filing Number

14-07-2025

Filing Number

203390/2025

Filing Date

14-Jul-2025

Registration No

200029/2025

Registration Date

14-Jul-2025

Court

Sub Court, Irinjalakuda

Judge

1-Principal Sub Judge

Decision Date

30-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 15-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section Order43Rule1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Aravindaksha Menon

    Adv. RAJESH THAMPAN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Devayani Advocate - JAGADEESH K

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 30-Mar-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    Summary of Case 200029/2025 (CMA 29/2025) Court: Principal Sub Judge, Irinjalakuda Date: 30 March 2026 Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed. The trial court's rejection of the temporary injunction petition was upheld. Key Facts: Aravindaksha Menon sought a temporary injunction restraining the respondents (heirs of his deceased brother Balachandra Menon) from construction activities, alleging they had encroached approximately 70 cents on his property by erecting concrete posts that reduced his road frontage from ~33 metres to 9.2 metres. The appellant claimed unauthorized boundary obliteration and ongoing construction in disputed areas. Court's Reasoning: While the appellant established a prima facie case showing unequal road frontage distribution, the court found the balance of convenience favored the respondents because: (1) they had substantially progressed with residential construction with all required permits and approvals; (2) they filed an unconditional undertaking to demolish any encroaching portions if the suit succeeds; and (3) the earlier related suit (OS 1860/2007) concerned different boundary disputes. The respondents' undertaking rendered the irreparable injury test favorable to them over the petitioner. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 30-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal Sub Judge

  4. 17-Mar-2026

    Order/ Judgement

    Principal Sub Judge

  5. 16-Mar-2026

    For further hearing

    Principal Sub Judge

  6. 13-Mar-2026

    For Hearing

    Principal Sub Judge

  7. 12-Mar-2026

    For production of documents/Affidavit

    Principal Sub Judge

  8. 05-Mar-2026

    For Hearing

    Principal Sub Judge

  9. 03-Mar-2026

    Call on

    Principal Sub Judge

  10. 18-Feb-2026

    Await Lcr

    Principal Sub Judge

  11. 08-Jan-2026

    Await Lcr

    Principal Sub Judge

  12. 09-Dec-2025

    Await Lcr

    Principal Sub Judge

  13. 14-Nov-2025

    For L C R

    Principal Sub Judge

  14. 16-Aug-2025

    Issue notice

    Principal Sub Judge

  15. 15-Jul-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  16. 14-Jul-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 200029/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case 200029/2025 (CMA 29/2025) Court: Principal Sub Judge, Irinjalakuda Date: 30 March 2026 Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed. The trial court's rejection of the temporary injunction petition was upheld. Key Facts: Aravindaksha Menon sought a temporary injunction restraining the respondents (heirs of his deceased brother Balachandra Menon) from construction activities, alleging they had encroached approximately 70 cents on his property by erecting concrete posts that reduced his road frontage from ~33 metres to 9.2 metres. The appellant claimed unauthorized boundary obliteration and ongoing construction in disputed areas. Court's Reasoning: While the appellant established a prima facie case showing unequal road frontage distribution, the court found the balance of convenience favored the respondents because: (1) they had substantially progressed with residential construction with all required permits and approvals; (2) they filed an unconditional undertaking to demolish any encroaching portions if the suit succeeds; and (3) the earlier related suit (OS 1860/2007) concerned different boundary disputes. The respondents' undertaking rendered the irreparable injury test favorable to them over the petitioner. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case