John vs Raveendran Nair — 200197/2015

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section OVII,R1. Status: For commission report. Next hearing: 06th July 2026.

OS - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KLAL290002442015

For commission report

Next Hearing

06th July 2026

Filing Number

200293/2015

Filing Date

20-05-2015

Registration No

200197/2015

Registration Date

20-05-2015

Court

Munsiff Court, Chengannur

Judge

1-Munsiff, Chengannur

Acts & Sections

Civil Procedure Code Section OVII,R1
IA/5/2025 Classification : Section JohnRaveendran Nair
IA/6/2025 Classification : Section JohnRaveendran Nair
IA/7/2025 Classification : Section JohnRaveendran Nair
IA/8/2025 Classification : Section JohnRaveendran Nair
IA/9/2025 Classification : Section JohnKunjumon

Petitioner(s)

John

Adv. Harikrishnan R

Respondent(s)

Raveendran Nair

Madhu

Kunjumon

Ruby

Ramanan Pilla

Shaji

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Munsiff, Chengannur

11-03-2026

For commission report

22-01-2026

For commission report

08-12-2025

For commission report

21-11-2025

Orders in IA

03-10-2025

For hearing on IA

Interim Orders

06-04-2019
Judgement

Summary The suit for injunction and damages (OS 197/2015) filed by John against six defendants was decreed in the plaintiff's favor. The court granted a prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing on the plaintiff's property, cutting pathways through it, or committing any waste or mischief. However, the claim for Rs. 5,000 in damages was rejected due to insufficient evidence of the cost required for restoration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The suit for injunction and damages (OS 197/2015) filed by John against six defendants was decreed in the plaintiff's favor. The court granted a prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing on the plaintiff's property, cutting pathways through it, or committing any waste or mischief. However, the claim for Rs. 5,000 in damages was rejected due to insufficient evidence of the cost required for restoration. 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

Munsiff Court, Chengannur All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case