Biju vs Vattakkadu Youth League Vayanasala Advocate - Sreekumar.N.S, Sreekumar.N.S — 100067/2021
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Status: Listed to. Next hearing: 04th August 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLAL250001042021
Next Hearing
04th August 2026
Filing Number
100102/2021
Filing Date
25-02-2021
Registration No
100067/2021
Registration Date
25-02-2021
Court
Munsiffs Court, Kayamkulam
Judge
1-Munsiff
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Biju
Adv. SUNNYKUTTY. K
Respondent(s)
Vattakkadu Youth League Vayanasala Advocate - Sreekumar.N.S, Sreekumar.N.S
G.Sasidharan Pillai
Adv. Sreekumar N S,ANZARI C M
S.S.Abhilash Kumar
Adv. Sreekumar N S,ANZARI C M
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Munsiff
Listed to
Call on
For Examination of Witness
Return of summons
For return of summons
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 31-03-2026 | Listed to |
| 21-03-2026 | Call on |
| 12-03-2026 | For Examination of Witness |
| 24-02-2026 | Return of summons |
| 09-02-2026 | For return of summons |
Interim Orders
Court Order Summary Petition Allowed - Injunction Made Absolute The Munsiff Court of Kayamkulam allowed the petition filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code and made the ad-interim injunction absolute, permanently restraining the respondents (Vattakkadu Youth League and its officers) from obstructing the petitioner's use of a pathway for ingress and egress to his property. The court found that the pathway was the only access route to the petitioner's property and that a commissioner's inspection confirmed no alternate pathway existed, despite the respondents' claims to the contrary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Order Summary Petition Allowed - Injunction Made Absolute The Munsiff Court of Kayamkulam allowed the petition filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code and made the ad-interim injunction absolute, permanently restraining the respondents (Vattakkadu Youth League and its officers) from obstructing the petitioner's use of a pathway for ingress and egress to his property. The court found that the pathway was the only access route to the petitioner's property and that a commissioner's inspection confirmed no alternate pathway existed, despite the respondents' claims to the contrary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts