Karthika V Nair vs Jayakrishnan — 100168/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Section26OrderVIIRule1&2. Status: Issues. Next hearing: 15th September 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLAL250002362025
e-Filing Number
28-05-2025
Filing Number
279/2025
Filing Date
28-May-2025
Registration No
100168/2025
Registration Date
28-May-2025
Court
Munsiffs Court, Kayamkulam
Judge
1-Munsiff
Last updated 21-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Karthika V Nair
Adv. SAJI S K
-
2.Girinathan .S.Nair
Respondent(s)
-
1.Jayakrishnan
Case History
-
15-Sep-2026
Next hearingPending
-
05-Jun-2026
Issues
Munsiff
-
18-Mar-2026
Appearance Of Parties
Munsiff
-
18-Dec-2025
Written Statement
Munsiff
-
15-Nov-2025
OrderView PDF
CASE SUMMARY: 100168/2025 The Munsiff Court in Kayamkulam allowed the petitioner's application for temporary injunction on 15 November 2025. The petitioner sought to prevent neighbors (Jayakrishnan and Jayalekshmi) from obstructing a pathway (C2 item) essential for access to her property. Evidence from a court-appointed commissioner confirmed boundary encroachment—fencing stones were moved approximately 1 meter westward into the disputed pathway, reducing its usable width. The court found a prima facie case, balance of convenience favoring the petitioner, and risk of irreparable injury, making the ad interim injunction absolute until suit disposal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
15-Nov-2025
Written Statement
Munsiff
-
05-Nov-2025
Order/Judgement
Munsiff
-
25-Oct-2025
For hearing on IA
Munsiff
-
05-Aug-2025
For hearing on IA
Munsiff
-
05-Jul-2025
Return of summons
Munsiff
-
26-Jun-2025
Return of summons
Munsiff
-
28-May-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
28-May-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 100168/2025
CASE SUMMARY: 100168/2025 The Munsiff Court in Kayamkulam allowed the petitioner's application for temporary injunction on 15 November 2025. The petitioner sought to prevent neighbors (Jayakrishnan and Jayalekshmi) from obstructing a pathway (C2 item) essential for access to her property. Evidence from a court-appointed commissioner confirmed boundary encroachment—fencing stones were moved approximately 1 meter westward into the disputed pathway, reducing its usable width. The court found a prima facie case, balance of convenience favoring the petitioner, and risk of irreparable injury, making the ad interim injunction absolute until suit disposal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts