Alappuzha Ananatha Narayanapuram Thuravoor Thirumala Devasom, Alappuzha represented by its president S. Rajkumar aged 57 years, S/o Surendra Kamath vs Dileep Advocate - VINOD M M, VINOD M M — 628/2025
Case under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section Order VII Rule 1 read with Section 26 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Status: Written Statement. Next hearing: 10th June 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLAL110013142025
Next Hearing
10th June 2026
Filing Number
1155/2025
Filing Date
11-12-2025
Registration No
628/2025
Registration Date
11-12-2025
Court
Munsiff Court, Cherthala
Judge
2-Additional Munsiff, Cherthala
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Alappuzha Ananatha Narayanapuram Thuravoor Thirumala Devasom, Alappuzha represented by its president S. Rajkumar aged 57 years, S/o Surendra Kamath
Adv. Jayasree D
Respondent(s)
Dileep Advocate - VINOD M M, VINOD M M
Salvin V.J.
Adv. KIRAN BRIGHT R
T. Aniyappan
Adv. VINOD M M,VINOD M M
Remanan
Adv. VINOD M M,VINOD M M
John Britto
Adv. VINOD M M,VINOD M M
Manesh
Adv. VINOD M M,VINOD M M
P.G. Raveendran
Adv. VINOD M M
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Additional Munsiff, Cherthala
Written Statement
Order/ Judgement
Adjourned
Order/ Judgement
For return of summons
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Written Statement |
| 04-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 03-02-2026 | Adjourned |
| 29-01-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 11-12-2025 | For return of summons |
Interim Orders
Summary The Additional Munsiff Court, Cherthala dismissed the interim injunction petition filed by Thirumala Devasom seeking to restrain respondents from trespassing on canal properties and obstructing fishing operations. The court found that the petitioner failed to establish ownership or possession of the disputed 180-acre padasekharam and 40-acre canals, did not approach the court with clean hands by seeking relief over properties it admittedly does not own, and could not clearly identify the property boundaries for enforcement of injunction. The court also determined that the balance of convenience favored the respondents, as granting the injunction would cause greater harm to them. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Additional Munsiff Court, Cherthala dismissed the interim injunction petition filed by Thirumala Devasom seeking to restrain respondents from trespassing on canal properties and obstructing fishing operations. The court found that the petitioner failed to establish ownership or possession of the disputed 180-acre padasekharam and 40-acre canals, did not approach the court with clean hands by seeking relief over properties it admittedly does not own, and could not clearly identify the property boundaries for enforcement of injunction. The court also determined that the balance of convenience favored the respondents, as granting the injunction would cause greater harm to them. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts