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
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
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
Disposed
No sitting notified
For further hearing
For further hearing
FOR HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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.
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