IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 6586 of 2010(O)
1. MR.K.E.VASUDEVAN NAMBOOTHIR,AGED 59,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M/S.HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.GEORGE(PUTHIYIDAM)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :02/03/2010
O R D E R
P. BHAVADASAN, J.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
W.P.(C) No. 6586 of 2010
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2010
JUDGMENT
In this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India the petitioenr assails Exts.P2 order
passed by the trial court and P3 judgment passed by the
lower appellate court.
2. The petitioner instituted O.S. No.224 of 2009
before the Munsiff’s Court, Kuthuparamba for decree of
permanent prohibitory injunction. The suit relates to 30
cents of property in Re-Survey No.73/2 of Kolayad Village,
Thalassery Taluk. The petitioner entered into a lease
agreement with the respondent as per Ext.A3 agreement
dated 10-7-2006. On the northern boundary of the petition
schedule property there is the family temple property. The
claim of the petitioner is that at the time of letting out the
property to the defendant in the suit there was an
understanding that dealership would be given to the son of
the petitioner. It is also claimed that initially it was so done
W.P.(C) No. 6586/10 2
Later, that was terminated and now defendant is attempting
to induct third parties in the petition schedule property.
Pointing out his right, the petitioner filed the above suit for
restraining the respondent from inducting any third parties
to the petition schedule property and conducting any
business therein. I.A. No.1870 of 2009 was filed for
temporary injunction. The trial court after elaborately
consideration of the matter found that the petitioner has
failed to prove that he is entitled to get a temporary
injunction as prayed for and therefore dismissed the
application. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal as
C.M.A.No.40 of 2009 before the Sub Court, Thalassery. The
lower appellate court after independently considering the
contentions of the petitioner came to the conclusion that the
trial court has rightly held that the petitioner has failed to
make out a prima facie case and dismissed the appeal.
Hence, this writ petition before this Court.
3. It is not disputed that the property was leased out
to the defendant as per Ext.A3 agreement. The petitioner
relies on an oral agreement and states that there was an
understanding that dealership would be given to the son of
W.P.(C) No. 6586/10 3
the petitioner. It is also stated that his son expended huge
amount for the dealership. Both the courts below found that
there is nothing to show the said claim of the petitioner is
true. No document is produced to show that the defendant
had agreed to any such proposal. My be that the petitioner’s
son was initially given leadership as a concession only, but
that cannot said to confer right on the petitioner as such.
There is no document to prove his claim. Both the courts
below concurrently found that the petitioner has failed to
make out a prima facie case.
4. No grounds are made out to interfere with the
order of the court below. There is no merit in this writ
petition and it is accordingly dismissed. However, the court
below shall make endeavour to dispose of the suit as
expeditiously as possible untrammelled by any of the
observations by any of the courts in interlocutory
proceedings.
P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE.
mn.
