Pushparajan vs Prasad — 100150/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Sec.26,Order7,Rule1,2. Disposed: Uncontested--DECREED WITH COST on 10th April 2026.

Case disposed

OS - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KLAL220002382024

Filing Number

100261/2024

Filing Date

24-May-2024

Registration No

100150/2024

Registration Date

24-May-2024

Court

Munsiff Court, Haripad

Judge

1-Munsiff, Haripad

Decision Date

10-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DECREED WITH COST

Last updated 21-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section Sec.26,Order7,Rule1,2
Ia/4/2025 Classification : Prosecution Petition Section PushparajanPrasad
Ia/5/2025 Classification : Commission Application Section PushparajanPrasad
Ia/6/2025 Classification : Advance Application Section PushparajanPrasad
Ia/1/2026 Classification : Petition Section PushparajanPrasad
Ia/2/2026 Classification : Application for Admission of Documents Section PushparajanPrasad
Ia/3/2026 Classification : Delay Condonation Application Section PushparajanPrasad

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Pushparajan

    Adv. RAJAN. R, RAJAN. R

  2. 2.Shilpa

    Adv. MOZHOOR RAJENDRA GOPINATH,MOZHOOR RAJENDRA GOPINATH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Prasad

  2. 2.Nisha Prasad

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    Case Summary: OS No. 150/2024 The Munsiff's Court granted Pushparajan and Shilpa's suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against Prasad and Nisha Prasad. The plaintiffs, who own adjacent properties with legally documented access rights through a road they purchased, successfully proved that defendants trespassed by accessing their property with vehicles on April 19, 2024, and parked a mini-lorry on their land without authorization. The court, finding defendants had no legal right to vehicular access through plaintiffs' property and noting unchallenged documentary evidence and commission reports confirming boundary violations, restrained defendants from vehicle access, parking, or obstructing plaintiffs' enjoyment of their property and ordered defendants to pay litigation costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Munsiff, Haripad

  4. 06-Apr-2026

    Order/ Judgement

    Munsiff, Haripad

  5. 01-Apr-2026

    For Hearing

    Munsiff, Haripad

  6. 30-Mar-2026

    For Hearing

    Munsiff, Haripad

  7. 18-Mar-2026

    For Hearing

    Munsiff, Haripad

  8. 13-Mar-2026

    For Hearing

    Munsiff, Haripad

  9. 05-Mar-2026

    Order/Judgement

    Munsiff, Haripad

  10. 28-Feb-2026

    Order/ Judgement

    Munsiff, Haripad

  11. 26-Feb-2026

    Order/Judgement

    Munsiff, Haripad

  12. 16-Feb-2026

    Order/ Judgement

    Munsiff, Haripad

  13. 04-Feb-2026

    Orders in IA

    Munsiff, Haripad

  14. 27-Jan-2026

    For Hearing

    Munsiff, Haripad

  15. 09-Jan-2026

    For commission report

    Munsiff, Haripad

  16. 08-Dec-2025

    For commission report

    Munsiff, Haripad

  17. 25-Oct-2025

    For hearing on IA

    Munsiff, Haripad

  18. 09-Oct-2025

    For hearing on IA

    Munsiff, Haripad

  19. 21-Aug-2025

    Written Statement

    Munsiff, Haripad

  20. 29-May-2025

    Written Statement

    Munsiff, Haripad

  21. 07-Feb-2025

    Written Statement

    Munsiff, Haripad

  22. 23-Nov-2024

    Written Statement

    Munsiff, Haripad

  23. 05-Jul-2024

    No sitting notified

    Munsiff, Haripad

  24. 18-Jun-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  25. 24-May-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 100150/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: OS No. 150/2024 The Munsiff's Court granted Pushparajan and Shilpa's suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against Prasad and Nisha Prasad. The plaintiffs, who own adjacent properties with legally documented access rights through a road they purchased, successfully proved that defendants trespassed by accessing their property with vehicles on April 19, 2024, and parked a mini-lorry on their land without authorization. The court, finding defendants had no legal right to vehicular access through plaintiffs' property and noting unchallenged documentary evidence and commission reports confirming boundary violations, restrained defendants from vehicle access, parking, or obstructing plaintiffs' enjoyment of their property and ordered defendants to pay litigation costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case