The petitioners should get an opportunity to urge their contentions based on the additional documents produced and the matter to be heard by the respective court. The honorable judgement was passed by High Court of Kerala in the case of M. Shahudeen and Samuelkutty v. Kerala Vyapari Vyavasai Ekopana Samithi [OP(C). No .383 OF 2020] by The Honorable Mr. Justice T.V. Anil Kumar.
Petitioners in this original petition were defendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.331/2019. An order of temporary injunction was passed by the court of first instance restraining the petitioners from entering into plaint property and causing obstruction to possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs. Being aggrieved by the order, C.M.A.No.25/2019 was filed by the petitioners. It was dismissed confirming the order passed by the trial court. The concurrent order of temporary injunction passed by the both courts below are challenged in this original petition.
When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the appellate court happened to agree with the trial court’s view only because additional documents produced in appeal by him were overlooked by that court. Had those documents also been considered it is contended, a different view would have been taken by the appellate court. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that those documents are not admissible in evidence and even if they are taken into account also, the order granting temporary injunction passed by the court of first instance would only have been upheld.
The court opinioned that, “it doesn’t want to express any opinion on merits of the contentions raised by the parties on either side, and is of the opinion that the petitioners should get an opportunity to urge their contentions based on the additional documents produced in C.M.A.No.25/2019 and the matter to be heard. Having heard the submissions made on behalf of the parties, court do not intend to interfere with the concurrent orders passed by the both courts below.”
This original petition was disposed of by court, “calling upon Sub Court, Kottarakkara, to reconsider after hearing parties in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. While allowing the impugned orders to sustain, court of the opinion that Sub Court, Kottarakkara has to have a re-look into the issues raised in I.A.No.1597/2019 and decide the matter afresh after hearing parties. In the result, the court below may give parties on both sides opportunity to produce documents on their side and it may decide the issues on hand untrammeled by the observations made in C.M.A.No.25/2019. It is further made clear that it will be open to the parties to urge before the court below that the suit itself may be disposed of provided it is ripe for trial.”