Dineshan vs Sarasan Advocate - JOY VARGHESE — 41/2026

Case under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section Section 26 order 7 rule 1. Status: Written Statement. Next hearing: 10th July 2026.

Written Statement Next hearing 10-Jul-2026 this date has passed

OS - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KLAL110000762026

Filing Number

41/2026

Filing Date

29-Jan-2026

Registration No

41/2026

Registration Date

29-Jan-2026

Court

Munsiff Court, Cherthala

Judge

1-Principal Munsiff. Cherthala

Last updated 12-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section Section 26 order 7 rule 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Dineshan

    Adv. RATHEESH N

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Sarasan Advocate - JOY VARGHESE

Case History

  1. 10-Jul-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    OrderView PDF

    CASE SUMMARY The petition for temporary injunction filed by Dineshan seeking to restrain defendant Sarasan from obstructing a public pathway (B schedule property) providing access to his property has been dismissed with costs to the defendant. The court found that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case, as an alternative access route to the MLA road exists, thereby weakening his claim that the disputed pathway is the sole means of access to his property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Apr-2026

    Written Statement

    Principal Munsiff. Cherthala

  4. 07-Apr-2026

    Order In IA

    Principal Munsiff. Cherthala

  5. 01-Apr-2026

    Order In IA

    Principal Munsiff. Cherthala

  6. 26-Mar-2026

    For hearing on IA

    Principal Munsiff. Cherthala

  7. 11-Mar-2026

    For hearing on IA

    Principal Munsiff. Cherthala

  8. 03-Mar-2026

    For hearing on IA

    Principal Munsiff. Cherthala

  9. 11-Feb-2026

    OrderView PDF

  10. 29-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  11. 29-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 41/2026

casestatus.in Summary

CASE SUMMARY The petition for temporary injunction filed by Dineshan seeking to restrain defendant Sarasan from obstructing a public pathway (B schedule property) providing access to his property has been dismissed with costs to the defendant. The court found that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case, as an alternative access route to the MLA road exists, thereby weakening his claim that the disputed pathway is the sole means of access to his property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case