Pavithran vs Bhasuran Advocate - PRATHAP G. PADICAL — 100236/2022

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Status: Listed to. Next hearing: 20th August 2026.

Listed to Next hearing 20-Aug-2026 in 2 weeks

OS - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KLAL250003632022

Filing Number

100356/2022

Filing Date

02-Jul-2022

Registration No

100236/2022

Registration Date

02-Jul-2022

Court

Munsiffs Court, Kayamkulam

Judge

1-Munsiff

Last updated 20-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 26

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Pavithran

    Adv. SREEKUMAR. K

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Bhasuran Advocate - PRATHAP G. PADICAL

Case History

  1. 20-Aug-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 08-Apr-2026

    Listed to

    Munsiff

  3. 21-Mar-2026

    Call on

    Munsiff

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    For further hearing

    Munsiff

  5. 24-Feb-2026

    For Steps

    Munsiff

  6. 12-Jan-2026

    Call on

    Munsiff

  7. 19-Dec-2025

    Return of summons

    Munsiff

  8. 10-Dec-2025

    Return of summons

    Munsiff

  9. 25-Nov-2025

    Return of summons

    Munsiff

  10. 10-Nov-2025

    Return of summons

    Munsiff

  11. 28-Oct-2025

    Return of summons

    Munsiff

  12. 15-Oct-2025

    Return of summons

    Munsiff

  13. 09-Oct-2025

    Return of summons

    Munsiff

  14. 08-Sep-2025

    Call on

    Munsiff

  15. 19-Aug-2025

    OrderView PDF

  16. 19-Aug-2025

    OrderView PDF

    Summary: The Munsiff Court of Kayamkulam allowed the petition filed by the defendant (Bhasuran) under Sections 151 and 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court permitted the defendant to re-open the plaintiff's evidence and allowed his counsel to recall the plaintiff (PW1) and witnesses for cross-examination in the partition and injunction suit. The court found that reopening evidence would ensure a fair trial and prevent injustice, as the defendant was previously set ex-parte due to non-appearance. No costs were ordered. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  17. 19-Aug-2025

    For cross examination.

    Munsiff

  18. 04-Aug-2025

    Order/Judgement

    Munsiff

  19. 25-Jul-2025

    For hearing on IA

    Munsiff

  20. 14-Jul-2025

    Objection

    Munsiff

  21. 09-Jul-2025

    Objection

    Munsiff

  22. 30-Jun-2025

    Objection

    Munsiff

  23. 19-Jun-2025

    Objection

    Munsiff

  24. 20-May-2025

    Further evidence

    Munsiff

  25. 10-Apr-2025

    Further evidence

    Munsiff

  26. 08-Apr-2025

    For cross examination.

    Munsiff

  27. 24-Jan-2025

    Listed to

    Munsiff

  28. 20-Dec-2024

    Issues

    Munsiff

  29. 28-Nov-2024

    Issues

    Munsiff

  30. 06-Nov-2024

    Referred to Mediator

    Munsiff

  31. 22-Aug-2024

    Referred to Mediator

    Munsiff

  32. 24-Jul-2024

    Referred to Mediator

    Munsiff

  33. 29-Jun-2024

    Referred to Mediator

    Munsiff

  34. 21-May-2024

    Referred to Mediator

    Munsiff

  35. 15-Mar-2024

    Referred to Mediator

    Munsiff

  36. 02-Feb-2024

    Referred to Mediator

    Munsiff

  37. 15-Dec-2023

    Referred to Mediator

    Munsiff

  38. 19-Oct-2023

    Issues

    Munsiff

  39. 07-Aug-2023

    Written Statement

    Munsiff

  40. 21-Jun-2023

    Written Statement

    Munsiff

  41. 20-May-2023

    Written Statement

    Munsiff

  42. 28-Nov-2022

    Adjourned

    Munsiff

  43. 30-Aug-2022

    Written Statement

    Munsiff

  44. 02-Jul-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  45. 02-Jul-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 100236/2022

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Munsiff Court of Kayamkulam allowed the petition filed by the defendant (Bhasuran) under Sections 151 and 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court permitted the defendant to re-open the plaintiff's evidence and allowed his counsel to recall the plaintiff (PW1) and witnesses for cross-examination in the partition and injunction suit. The court found that reopening evidence would ensure a fair trial and prevent injustice, as the defendant was previously set ex-parte due to non-appearance. No costs were ordered. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case