Manoj Kumar vs Pradeep Advocate - VINCENT JOSEPH — 100097/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Status: Issues. Next hearing: 23rd July 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLAL220001352025
e-Filing Number
21-03-2025
Filing Number
168/2025
Filing Date
21-Mar-2025
Registration No
100097/2025
Registration Date
21-Mar-2025
Court
Munsiff Court, Haripad
Judge
1-Munsiff, Haripad
Last updated 21-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Manoj Kumar
Adv. JAYAN K
-
2.Ambika
Adv. JAYAN K
Respondent(s)
-
1.Pradeep Advocate - VINCENT JOSEPH
-
2.Sasidharan
Adv. VINCENT JOSEPH
-
3.Gopalakrishnan
Case History
-
23-Jul-2026
Next hearingPending
-
26-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
-
26-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
The Munsiff Court of Haripad modified the temporary injunction order filed by Manoj Kumar and Ambika against Pradeep, Sasidharan, and Gopalakrishnan. The court restrained respondents from forcibly evicting petitioners from the disputed property and interfering with their peaceful residence, but permitted respondents to enter the property to conduct religious rituals and prayers to the family deity. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
26-Mar-2026
Issues
Munsiff, Haripad
-
18-Mar-2026
For hearing on IA
Munsiff, Haripad
-
05-Mar-2026
For hearing on IA
Munsiff, Haripad
-
28-Nov-2025
For hearing on IA
Munsiff, Haripad
-
20-Nov-2025
For hearing on IA
Munsiff, Haripad
-
23-Sep-2025
Adjourned
Munsiff, Haripad
-
09-Sep-2025
For hearing on IA
Munsiff, Haripad
-
05-Jul-2025
Written Statement
Munsiff, Haripad
-
22-May-2025
Return of summons
Munsiff, Haripad
-
21-Mar-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
21-Mar-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 100097/2025
The Munsiff Court of Haripad modified the temporary injunction order filed by Manoj Kumar and Ambika against Pradeep, Sasidharan, and Gopalakrishnan. The court restrained respondents from forcibly evicting petitioners from the disputed property and interfering with their peaceful residence, but permitted respondents to enter the property to conduct religious rituals and prayers to the family deity. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts