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.

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

OS - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KLAL110013142025

Filing Number

1155/2025

Filing Date

11-Dec-2025

Registration No

628/2025

Registration Date

11-Dec-2025

Court

Munsiff Court, Cherthala

Judge

2-Additional Munsiff, Cherthala

Last updated 25-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section Order VII Rule 1 read with Section 26 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.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)

  1. 1.Dileep Advocate - VINOD M M, VINOD M M

  2. 2.Salvin V.J.

    Adv. KIRAN BRIGHT R

  3. 3.T. Aniyappan

    Adv. VINOD M M,VINOD M M

  4. 4.Remanan

    Adv. VINOD M M,VINOD M M

  5. 5.John Britto

    Adv. VINOD M M,VINOD M M

  6. 6.Manesh

    Adv. VINOD M M,VINOD M M

  7. 7.P.G. Raveendran

    Adv. VINOD M M

Case History

  1. 10-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 12-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    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.

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Written Statement

    Additional Munsiff, Cherthala

  4. 04-Mar-2026

    Order/ Judgement

    Additional Munsiff, Cherthala

  5. 03-Feb-2026

    Adjourned

    Additional Munsiff, Cherthala

  6. 29-Jan-2026

    Order/ Judgement

    Additional Munsiff, Cherthala

  7. 11-Dec-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 11-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 628/2025

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case