Suraj John T vs Santhosh Lal Advocate - SREELY KUMAR KS, SANDEEP V G — 200014/2023

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Status: Issues. Next hearing: 19th May 2026.

OS - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KLER250000462023

Issues

Next Hearing

19th May 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

200050/2023

Filing Date

17-01-2023

Registration No

200014/2023

Registration Date

17-01-2023

Court

Munsiff Court, Kochi

Judge

2-Addl.Munsiff Kochi

Acts & Sections

Civil Procedure Code Section 26
IA/10/2025 Classification : Section Suraj John TSanthosh Lal
IA/11/2025 Classification : Petition To Set Aside Order / Decree Section Santhosh LalSuraj John T

Petitioner(s)

Suraj John T

Adv. BENEDICTA VEMBLY, Feba Mary Thomas, BABY K K, GOPIKA HH

Respondent(s)

Santhosh Lal Advocate - SREELY KUMAR KS, SANDEEP V G

Hearing History

Judge: 2-Addl.Munsiff Kochi

19-03-2026

Issues

09-03-2026

Written Statement

25-02-2026

For commission report

21-02-2026

Call with IA

31-01-2026

Call with IA

Interim Orders

11-12-2025
Final Order

Summary: The petition to set aside the ex parte order dated 01.12.2023 has been allowed without costs. The defendant, Santhosh Lal, had failed to file a written statement despite multiple opportunities and was consequently set ex parte. Although there was considerable delay (nearly 1 year and 10 months) before filing the petition, the court accepted his explanation that he was out of station and his father-in-law failed to communicate due to age-related ailments. Since the suit involves immovable property rights and denial of a fair opportunity to contest could have serious civil consequences, the court permitted the defendant to now file his written statement and contest the case on merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The petition to set aside the ex parte order dated 01.12.2023 has been allowed without costs. The defendant, Santhosh Lal, had failed to file a written statement despite multiple opportunities and was consequently set ex parte. Although there was considerable delay (nearly 1 year and 10 months) before filing the petition, the court accepted his explanation that he was out of station and his father-in-law failed to communicate due to age-related ailments. Since the suit involves immovable property rights and denial of a fair opportunity to contest could have serious civil consequences, the court permitted the defendant to now file his written statement and contest the case on merits. 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, Kochi All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case