Augustine Joseph vs Antony D Advocate - VISWANADHAN PILLAI K B — 54/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 104. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 31st March 2026.

Case disposed

CMA - CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL

CNR: KLAL010037672025

Filing Number

531/2025

Filing Date

25-Sep-2025

Registration No

54/2025

Registration Date

26-Sep-2025

Court

District and Sessions Court Alappuzha/ Rent Control Appellate Authority

Judge

1-District and Sessions Judge Alappuzha/Rent Control Appellate Authority

Decision Date

31-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 21-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 104
Ia/1/2025 Classification : Delay Condonation Application Section Augustine JosephAntony D
Ia/2/2025 Classification : Application for Stay During Pendency of Appeal Section Augustine JosephAntony D
Ia/3/2025 Classification : Sanction Petition Section Augustine JosephAntony D
Ia/4/2025 Classification : Adjournment Application Section Augustine JosephAntony D
Ia/5/2025 Classification : Petition Section Augustine JosephAntony D

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Augustine Joseph

    Adv. SULFIKAR S

  2. 2.Anila

    Adv. SULFIKAR S

  3. 3.Babila

    Adv. SULFIKAR S

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Antony D Advocate - VISWANADHAN PILLAI K B

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 31-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: Augustine Joseph & Others v. Antony D (CMA 54/2025) The District Court of Alappuzha dismissed the appellants' appeal challenging an ex-parte judgment and decree passed against them in a money recovery suit. The appellants claimed the defendant (a housewife) could not file a written statement timely because her husband, who was providing instructions to counsel, was working abroad. The court rejected these contentions, finding the appellants were not diligent in prosecuting the case despite nearly two years of opportunities, lacked credible documentary evidence, and appeared to delay execution proceedings. Both parties ordered to bear their respective costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 31-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District and Sessions Judge Alappuzha/Rent Control Appellate Authority

  4. 26-Mar-2026

    Order/ Judgement

    District and Sessions Judge Alappuzha/Rent Control Appellate Authority

  5. 18-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

  6. 18-Mar-2026

    Await Records

    District and Sessions Judge Alappuzha/Rent Control Appellate Authority

  7. 23-Feb-2026

    Call with IA

    District and Sessions Judge Alappuzha/Rent Control Appellate Authority

  8. 22-Jan-2026

    OrderView PDF

  9. 22-Jan-2026

    Call with IA

    District and Sessions Judge Alappuzha/Rent Control Appellate Authority

  10. 19-Jan-2026

    Call with IA

    District and Sessions Judge Alappuzha/Rent Control Appellate Authority

  11. 12-Jan-2026

    Call with IA

    District and Sessions Judge Alappuzha/Rent Control Appellate Authority

  12. 17-Dec-2025

    Call with IA

    District and Sessions Judge Alappuzha/Rent Control Appellate Authority

  13. 06-Dec-2025

    Call with IA

    District and Sessions Judge Alappuzha/Rent Control Appellate Authority

  14. 24-Nov-2025

    OrderView PDF

  15. 24-Nov-2025

    OrderView PDF

  16. 24-Nov-2025

    Call with IA

    District and Sessions Judge Alappuzha/Rent Control Appellate Authority

  17. 17-Nov-2025

    OrderView PDF

  18. 17-Nov-2025

    call on

    District and Sessions Judge Alappuzha/Rent Control Appellate Authority

  19. 15-Nov-2025

    call on

    District and Sessions Judge Alappuzha/Rent Control Appellate Authority

  20. 29-Oct-2025

    call on

    District and Sessions Judge Alappuzha/Rent Control Appellate Authority

  21. 29-Sep-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  22. 25-Sep-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 54/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Augustine Joseph & Others v. Antony D (CMA 54/2025) The District Court of Alappuzha dismissed the appellants' appeal challenging an ex-parte judgment and decree passed against them in a money recovery suit. The appellants claimed the defendant (a housewife) could not file a written statement timely because her husband, who was providing instructions to counsel, was working abroad. The court rejected these contentions, finding the appellants were not diligent in prosecuting the case despite nearly two years of opportunities, lacked credible documentary evidence, and appeared to delay execution proceedings. Both parties ordered to bear their respective costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case