Babu K K vs Surendran Advocate - VIVEK — 2/2026

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section ORDER XLIII Rule 1(r). Status: For Hearing. Next hearing: 20th May 2026.

For Hearing Next hearing 20-May-2026 this date has passed

CMA - CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL

CNR: KLER010000382026

Filing Number

2/2026

Filing Date

01-Jan-2026

Registration No

2/2026

Registration Date

05-Jan-2026

Court

District and Sessions Court/Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam

Judge

3-Second Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ernakulam

Last updated 30-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section ORDER XLIII Rule 1(r)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Babu K K

    Adv. C.VARGHESE KURIAKOSE

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Surendran Advocate - VIVEK

  2. 2.Leela

    Adv. VIVEK,PAUL T SAMUEL

  3. 3.Charudathan

    Adv. VIVEK,PAUL T SAMUEL

  4. 4.Chitra

    Adv. VIVEK,PAUL T SAMUEL

Case History

  1. 20-May-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 17-Mar-2026

    For Hearing

    Second Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ernakulam

  3. 10-Mar-2026

    Adjourned

    Second Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ernakulam

  4. 28-Feb-2026

    For Objection and hearing

    Second Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ernakulam

  5. 09-Jan-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary: The District Court of Ernakulam granted an interim (temporary) injunction restraining the four respondents from trespassing onto the petitioner's scheduled property, using it for any purpose, or committing acts of waste thereon until 28 February 2026. The court found the petitioner had established a prima facie case and that issuing prior notice would defeat the petition's purpose due to delay. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  6. 09-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 01-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 2/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The District Court of Ernakulam granted an interim (temporary) injunction restraining the four respondents from trespassing onto the petitioner's scheduled property, using it for any purpose, or committing acts of waste thereon until 28 February 2026. The court found the petitioner had established a prima facie case and that issuing prior notice would defeat the petition's purpose due to delay. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case