Eram Property Network Private Limited vs Mather Project Private Limited

M.R.Anitha, J

Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.13/2022 on the file of the Munsiff Court-III, Ernakulam. The suit has been filed for a permanent prohibitory

injunction restraining the respondents and their men and agents from obstructing the ingress and egress and plying of vehicles of the plaintiff and their

tenants and customers to the dedicated car parking area of the plaintiff in the plaint schedule building and in the common area. Further a mandatory

injunction has also been sought for directing the defendants to restore the way to the parking area and common spaces into motorable condition by

restoring the tiles which were laid down in the common area.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, along with the suit, I.A.No.2/2022 was filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for a temporary injunction of restraining the respondents and their men and agents from obstructing the ingress and

egress and plying of vehicles of the petitioner, their tenants and customers to the dedicated car parking area of the petitioner in the plaint schedule

building and in the common area till the disposal of the suit. But, by the impugned order, the learned Munsiff passed an order by an ad-interim

injunction restraining the respondents from causing any obstruction to the pedestrian use of the common area of plaint schedule property by the

plaintiff, their tenants and customers until further orders. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order passed will

cause prejudice to the petitioner and the relief sought for by the petitioner has actually was not considered. According to the learned counsel, the

petitioner has never a case with respect to the pedestrian use and its obstruction by the respondents and the specific case in the I.A. itself is with

respect to the vehicle ingress and egress to the parking area.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that they have let out the ground-floor and first-floor to the Tata Westside for conducting

their showroom for dresses. The customers of the petitioner's tenants used to park in the common area which is on the front yard and also in the

dedicated car parking area of the petitioner. Petitioner approached the court while there was obstruction from the side of the respondents for the

ingress and egress to the petitioner's tenants and customers to the parking area and that obstruction according to the petitioner is with an intention to

obstruct the petitioner's tenants and customers. But no relief has been granted with respect to the car parking facility, as sought for by the petitioner,

by the Munsiff. At the same time an interim order has been granted with respect to pedestrians use which was not an issue at all. Hence it appears

that the order passed by the Munsiff is improper and irregular and has caused miscarriage of justice.

Hence, the interim injunction already granted is modified and respondents are restrained from causing any obstruction to the petitioner and his

tenants and customers in using the 49 earmarked parking area, if at all it is actually covered by the title deeds of the petitioner, for a period of 15 days.

Thereafter, the court below shall pass appropriate orders, after hearing both sides.

Accordingly, the original Petition is disposed of.