Sreedevi vs Lalitha Advocate - ANIL. C. D — 100304/2022

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Status: Listed to. Next hearing: 04th July 2026.

OS - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KLAL250004682022

Listed to

Next Hearing

04th July 2026

Filing Number

100461/2022

Filing Date

15-09-2022

Registration No

100304/2022

Registration Date

15-09-2022

Court

Munsiffs Court, Kayamkulam

Judge

1-Munsiff

Acts & Sections

Civil Procedure Code Section 26
IA/9/2025 Classification : Advance Application Section SreedeviLalitha
IA/10/2025 Classification : Petition Section SreedeviLalitha
IA/1/2026 Classification : Application Seeking Permission To Produce Documents Section SreedeviLalitha
IA/2/2026 Classification : Petition Section SreedeviLalitha

Petitioner(s)

Sreedevi

Adv. MOHANAN. S

Renuka

Respondent(s)

Lalitha Advocate - ANIL. C. D

Sreekutty

Adv. ANIL. C. D

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Munsiff

24-03-2026

Listed to

11-03-2026

For cross examination.

07-03-2026

For cross examination.

20-02-2026

For cross examination.

17-02-2026

Call on

Interim Orders

06-01-2023
Order
06-01-2023
Order
06-01-2023
Order

Court Order Summary The Munsiff Court of Kayamkulam dismissed I.A. 1/2022 (plaintiffs' petition for temporary injunction) and allowed I.A. 4/2022 (defendants' petition to vacate the interim injunction), vacating the ad-interim injunction granted on 15.09.2022. The court found that the plaintiffs suppressed material facts regarding 85% land acquisition of the residential building by National Highway authorities and approached the court with unclean hands, thus failing to establish a prima facie case for injunction relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Court Order Summary The Munsiff Court of Kayamkulam dismissed I.A. 1/2022 (plaintiffs' petition for temporary injunction) and allowed I.A. 4/2022 (defendants' petition to vacate the interim injunction), vacating the ad-interim injunction granted on 15.09.2022. The court found that the plaintiffs suppressed material facts regarding 85% land acquisition of the residential building by National Highway authorities and approached the court with unclean hands, thus failing to establish a prima facie case for injunction relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Munsiffs Court, Kayamkulam All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case