R. Bhaskaran Nair vs Radhamany Advocate - Vijayasree. V. V — 376/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section ORDER VII, RULE 1. Status: Written Statement. Next hearing: 17th June 2026.

Written Statement Next hearing 17-Jun-2026 this date has passed

OS - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KLAL220005062025

Filing Number

521/2025

Filing Date

03-Nov-2025

Registration No

376/2025

Registration Date

04-Nov-2025

Court

Munsiff Court, Haripad

Judge

1-Munsiff, Haripad

Last updated 12-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section ORDER VII, RULE 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.R. Bhaskaran Nair

    Adv. CHYTHANYA BENO

  2. 2.Rajasree

    Adv. CHYTHANYA BENO,BENO G RAJASREE R Devika v

  3. 3.Athul Krishnan. B

    Adv. CHYTHANYA BENO,BENO G RAJASREE R Devika v

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Radhamany Advocate - Vijayasree. V. V

Case History

  1. 17-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 09-Apr-2026

    Written Statement

    Munsiff, Haripad

  3. 11-Mar-2026

    Written Statement

    Munsiff, Haripad

  4. 05-Jan-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary: The Munsiff Court dismissed the petition for temporary injunction but disposed of it by directing both parties to maintain status quo as per the commission report until the suit's disposal. The court found that whether the plaintiffs have exclusive right of way through the disputed pathway requires evidence to be adjudicated after trial, making a status quo order more appropriate than granting or denying the injunction. Each party shall bear their own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  5. 05-Jan-2026

    Written Statement

    Munsiff, Haripad

  6. 18-Dec-2025

    Orders in IA

    Munsiff, Haripad

  7. 17-Dec-2025

    For hearing on IA

    Munsiff, Haripad

  8. 04-Dec-2025

    For hearing on IA

    Munsiff, Haripad

  9. 04-Nov-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  10. 03-Nov-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 376/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Munsiff Court dismissed the petition for temporary injunction but disposed of it by directing both parties to maintain status quo as per the commission report until the suit's disposal. The court found that whether the plaintiffs have exclusive right of way through the disputed pathway requires evidence to be adjudicated after trial, making a status quo order more appropriate than granting or denying the injunction. Each party shall bear their own 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