Rajeswary vs Mohanan Advocate - BIJU. D — 100098/2022
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Status: Listed to. Next hearing: 20th June 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLAL250001432022
Next Hearing
20th June 2026
Filing Number
100139/2022
Filing Date
11-03-2022
Registration No
100098/2022
Registration Date
11-03-2022
Court
Munsiffs Court, Kayamkulam
Judge
1-Munsiff
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Rajeswary
Adv. SREEPRIYA. A
Respondent(s)
Mohanan Advocate - BIJU. D
Jagdamma
Adv. BIJU. D
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Munsiff
Listed to
Return of notice
Return of summons
for evidence.
For reports
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 26-03-2026 | Listed to |
| 12-03-2026 | Return of notice |
| 25-02-2026 | Return of summons |
| 09-02-2026 | for evidence. |
| 03-02-2026 | For reports |
Interim Orders
Summary The petition for temporary injunction was dismissed by the Munsiff Court, Kayamkulam on December 5, 2022. The court found that the petitioner (property owner Rajeswary) failed to establish a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience did not favor granting an injunction against the respondents' possession of the disputed property. The court reasoned that without demarcating the exact extent of the disputed area between the parties' competing claims (petitioner claims 2 cents, respondents claim 10 cents), any injunction order would unfairly prejudice the respondents' possessory rights, which have been exercised since 1966. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The petition for temporary injunction was dismissed by the Munsiff Court, Kayamkulam on December 5, 2022. The court found that the petitioner (property owner Rajeswary) failed to establish a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience did not favor granting an injunction against the respondents' possession of the disputed property. The court reasoned that without demarcating the exact extent of the disputed area between the parties' competing claims (petitioner claims 2 cents, respondents claim 10 cents), any injunction order would unfairly prejudice the respondents' possessory rights, which have been exercised since 1966. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts