Yaminikutty@Yamini Devi vs Krishnan Namboothiri Advocate - LATHA B — 387/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26, Orde 7, Clause 1 and 2. Status: Verify and report. Next hearing: 18th June 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLAL220005172025
Filing Number
532/2025
Filing Date
05-Nov-2025
Registration No
387/2025
Registration Date
10-Nov-2025
Court
Munsiff Court, Haripad
Judge
1-Munsiff, Haripad
Last updated 12-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Yaminikutty@Yamini Devi
Adv. VIJAYAMBIKA. D
-
2.Yamuna Devi
Adv. VIJAYAMBIKA. D
Respondent(s)
-
1.Krishnan Namboothiri Advocate - LATHA B
-
2.Mahesh
Adv. LATHA B
Case History
-
18-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
23-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
-
23-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
-
23-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
-
23-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
Summary: The petition filed by Krishnan Namboothiri (the father of the plaintiffs) to implead himself as an additional third plaintiff in the property dispute suit was dismissed. The court held that the petitioner's presence was not necessary for effective adjudication of the suit between the plaintiffs and defendants, and that he could pursue his grievances regarding the disputed sale deed separately through independent legal proceedings. Both parties are directed to bear their respective costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
23-Mar-2026
Verify and report
Munsiff, Haripad
-
18-Mar-2026
Orders in IA
Munsiff, Haripad
-
11-Mar-2026
Orders in IA
Munsiff, Haripad
-
28-Feb-2026
For further hearing
Munsiff, Haripad
-
24-Feb-2026
For hearing on IA
Munsiff, Haripad
-
20-Feb-2026
For hearing on IA
Munsiff, Haripad
-
16-Jan-2026
Written Statement
Munsiff, Haripad
-
13-Jan-2026
Hearing on Last chance
Munsiff, Haripad
-
05-Jan-2026
For commission report
Munsiff, Haripad
-
11-Dec-2025
For return of summons
Munsiff, Haripad
-
10-Nov-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
05-Nov-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 387/2025
Summary: The petition filed by Krishnan Namboothiri (the father of the plaintiffs) to implead himself as an additional third plaintiff in the property dispute suit was dismissed. The court held that the petitioner's presence was not necessary for effective adjudication of the suit between the plaintiffs and defendants, and that he could pursue his grievances regarding the disputed sale deed separately through independent legal proceedings. Both parties are directed to bear their respective costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts