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
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
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
Issues
Written Statement
For commission report
Call with IA
Call with IA
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts