Jithesh Sreedharan vs Preetha Anil Advocate - VINOD K S — 100333/2022

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 104,OrderXLIII,Rule1. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 18th March 2026.

CMA - CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL

CNR: KLTV010062562022

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

27-10-2022

Filing Number

2480/2022

Filing Date

29-10-2022

Registration No

100333/2022

Registration Date

29-10-2022

Court

District Court / Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thiruvananthapuram

Judge

4-Adl. District Judge - III UAT, Thiruvananthapuram

Decision Date

18th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Acts & Sections

Civil Procedure Code Section 104,OrderXLIII,Rule1

Petitioner(s)

Jithesh Sreedharan

Adv. SUJIN P

Jilu Jithesh

Adv. SUJIN P

Respondent(s)

Preetha Anil Advocate - VINOD K S

Anil S

Adv. VINOD K S

Hearing History

Judge: 4-Adl. District Judge - III UAT, Thiruvananthapuram

18-03-2026

Disposed

13-03-2026

No sitting notified

26-02-2026

For further hearing

07-02-2026

For further hearing

12-12-2025

FOR HEARING

Final Orders / Judgements

18-03-2026
Order

Case Summary: CMA No. 333/2022 Court Decision: The Additional District Judge allowed the appellants' appeal and granted a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from further excavating land within five meters adjacent to the northern boundary of the plaintiffs' property until suit disposal. The court rejected the lower court's dismissal, finding the plaintiffs entitled to lateral support rights despite their building construction. Key Reasoning: Although the respondents argued the plaintiffs forfeited lateral support rights by altering property conditions through building construction, the court held that purchasers of subdivided plots remain entitled to lateral support. The court found irreparable loss would result if excavation continued adjacent to the building. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CMA No. 333/2022 Court Decision: The Additional District Judge allowed the appellants' appeal and granted a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from further excavating land within five meters adjacent to the northern boundary of the plaintiffs' property until suit disposal. The court rejected the lower court's dismissal, finding the plaintiffs entitled to lateral support rights despite their building construction. Key Reasoning: Although the respondents argued the plaintiffs forfeited lateral support rights by altering property conditions through building construction, the court held that purchasers of subdivided plots remain entitled to lateral support. The court found irreparable loss would result if excavation continued adjacent to the building. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

District Court / Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thiruvananthapuram All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case