Prabhakaran vs Dinesh.P Advocate - JOJI. K ANTONY — 200482/2024

Case under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section Order 7 rule 1,section 26. Status: Issues. Next hearing: 02nd July 2026.

OS - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KLAL110009252024

Issues

Next Hearing

02nd July 2026

e-Filing Number

25-07-2024

Filing Number

201038/2024

Filing Date

25-07-2024

Registration No

200482/2024

Registration Date

25-07-2024

Court

Munsiff Court, Cherthala

Judge

2-Additional Munsiff, Cherthala

Acts & Sections

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section Order 7 rule 1,section 26
IA/7/2025 Classification : Advance Application Section PrabhakaranDinesh.P
IA/8/2025 Classification : Carbon Copy Application Section Dinesh.P
IA/9/2025 Classification : Injunction Application Section Dinesh.P
IA/10/2025 Classification : Advance Application Section PrabhakaranDinesh.P
IA/1/2026 Classification : Injunction Application Section PrabhakaranDinesh.P

Petitioner(s)

Prabhakaran

Adv. SUBHANGAN V. N

Respondent(s)

Dinesh.P Advocate - JOJI. K ANTONY

Deepa Dinesh

Adv. MANOJ. P

Lekshmi Dinesh

Adv. MANOJ. P

Hearing History

Judge: 2-Additional Munsiff, Cherthala

18-05-2026

Issues

10-04-2026

Order/ Judgement

16-03-2026

Order/ Judgement

28-02-2026

Order/ Judgement

20-02-2026

Order/ Judgement

Interim Orders

07-02-2025
Order
10-10-2025
Final Order
10-10-2025
Final Order

Case Summary: 200482/2024 Dinesh.P (1st Defendant) filed an Interim Application to condone a 40-day delay in filing a review petition (IA 4/25). The Additional Munsiff dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to provide any reason or sufficient cause for the delay as required under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court held the petition meritless and dismissed the IA. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 200482/2024 Dinesh.P (1st Defendant) filed an Interim Application to condone a 40-day delay in filing a review petition (IA 4/25). The Additional Munsiff dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to provide any reason or sufficient cause for the delay as required under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court held the petition meritless and dismissed the IA. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Munsiff Court, Cherthala All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case