Sebastian vs St. Antonys Vivaha Sahaya Sangham Advocate - Sijo George — 100058/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Order 41 Rule 1,Section 96. Status: Call on. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.
AS - CIVIL APPEAL
CNR: KLER010049642025
e-Filing Number
19-05-2025
Filing Number
102764/2025
Filing Date
19-May-2025
Registration No
100058/2025
Registration Date
19-May-2025
Court
District and Sessions Court/Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam
Judge
8-Fifth Addl District and Sessions Judge(Idamalayar), Ernakulam
Last updated 26-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Sebastian
Adv. Balagopalan A
Respondent(s)
-
1.St. Antonys Vivaha Sahaya Sangham Advocate - Sijo George
Case History
-
27-Mar-2026
Next hearingPending
-
07-Mar-2026
Call on
District and Sessions Judge, Ernakulam
-
15-Jan-2026
For Hearing
District and Sessions Judge, Ernakulam
-
06-Nov-2025
OrderView PDF
Case Summary Petition Allowed – The District Judge of Ernakulam granted the petitioner's application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone a 34-day delay in filing an appeal. The petitioner's counsel had suffered a slip disc on March 6, 2025, requiring bed rest, which prevented timely filing of the appeal due by March 10, 2025. The court found the reason acceptable and prioritized consideration on merits over technical grounds, allowing the petition in the interest of justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
06-Nov-2025
Await Records
District and Sessions Judge, Ernakulam
-
19-Aug-2025
Call with IA
District and Sessions Judge, Ernakulam
-
01-Jul-2025
Call with IA
District and Sessions Judge, Ernakulam
-
22-May-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
19-May-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 100058/2025
Case Summary Petition Allowed – The District Judge of Ernakulam granted the petitioner's application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone a 34-day delay in filing an appeal. The petitioner's counsel had suffered a slip disc on March 6, 2025, requiring bed rest, which prevented timely filing of the appeal due by March 10, 2025. The court found the reason acceptable and prioritized consideration on merits over technical grounds, allowing the petition in the interest of justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts