Roopesh.O.B vs Anilkumar — 100016/2025

Case under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section O7R1. Status: Call with IA. Next hearing: 22nd May 2026.

OS - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KLAL280000732025

Call with IA

Next Hearing

22nd May 2026

Filing Number

100086/2025

Filing Date

19-07-2022

Registration No

100016/2025

Registration Date

10-06-2025

Court

Sub Court, Chengannur

Judge

1-Sub Judge and Asst.Sessions Judge, Chengannur

Acts & Sections

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section O7R1
IA/257/2019 Classification : Injunction Application Section Roopesh.O.BAnilkumar
IA/5/2025 Classification : Application Seeking Permission To Produce Documents Section AnilkumarRoopesh.O.B
IA/1/2026 Classification : Application To Accept Power Of Attorney Section Roopesh.O.BAnilkumar
IA/2/2026 Classification : Amendment Application Section Roopesh.O.BAnilkumar
IA/3/2026 Classification : Amendment Application Section Roopesh.O.BAnilkumar
IA/4/2026 Classification : Petition Section Roopesh.O.BAnilkumar

Petitioner(s)

Roopesh.O.B

Respondent(s)

Anilkumar

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Sub Judge and Asst.Sessions Judge, Chengannur

07-04-2026

Call with IA

27-03-2026

Call with IA

24-03-2026

Call with IA

11-03-2026

Orders in IA

06-03-2026

Call with IA

Interim Orders

13-01-2026
Order
06-03-2026
Order
24-03-2026
Order

Summary: The petition seeking prosecution of the respondent for contempt of court was dismissed. The Sub Judge found insufficient evidence to prove that the respondent willfully violated the injunction order, as the order was never properly served on him—it was returned unserved when attempt was made to serve it on his wife, and the respondent was in the Gulf at the material time. Since penal proceedings require proof beyond reasonable doubt, the court could not establish intentional violation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The petition seeking prosecution of the respondent for contempt of court was dismissed. The Sub Judge found insufficient evidence to prove that the respondent willfully violated the injunction order, as the order was never properly served on him—it was returned unserved when attempt was made to serve it on his wife, and the respondent was in the Gulf at the material time. Since penal proceedings require proof beyond reasonable doubt, the court could not establish intentional violation. 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

Sub Court, Chengannur All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case