Mr.K.E.Vasudevan Namboothir vs M/S.Hindustan Petroleum … on 2 March, 2010

Kerala High Court
Mr.K.E.Vasudevan Namboothir vs M/S.Hindustan Petroleum … on 2 March, 2010




WP(C).No. 6586 of 2010(O)

                      ...  Petitioner


                       ...       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


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




Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information