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.

OS - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KLAL220005062025

Written Statement

Next Hearing

17th June 2026

Filing Number

521/2025

Filing Date

03-11-2025

Registration No

376/2025

Registration Date

04-11-2025

Court

Munsiff Court, Haripad

Judge

1-Munsiff, Haripad

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section ORDER VII, RULE 1
Ia/1/2025 Classification : Injunction Application Section R. Bhaskaran NairRadhamany
Ia/2/2025 Classification : Commission Application Section R. Bhaskaran NairRadhamany
Ia/3/2025 Classification : Petition to Accept Photocopy Section R. Bhaskaran NairRadhamany
Ia/4/2025 Classification : Petition Section R. Bhaskaran NairRadhamany
Ia/5/2025 Classification : Advance Application Section R. Bhaskaran NairRadhamany

Petitioner(s)

R. Bhaskaran Nair

Adv. CHYTHANYA BENO

Rajasree

Adv. CHYTHANYA BENO,BENO G RAJASREE R Devika v

Athul Krishnan. B

Adv. CHYTHANYA BENO,BENO G RAJASREE R Devika v

Respondent(s)

Radhamany Advocate - Vijayasree. V. V

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Munsiff, Haripad

09-04-2026

Written Statement

11-03-2026

Written Statement

05-01-2026

Written Statement

18-12-2025

Orders in IA

17-12-2025

For hearing on IA

Interim Orders

05-01-2026
Order

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.

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.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Munsiff Court, Haripad All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case