Sindhu vs M/s Ambedkar Cultural Forum — 200103/2022
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Status: Further evidence. Next hearing: 18th May 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLER250001822022
Next Hearing
18th May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
200183/2022
Filing Date
19-03-2022
Registration No
200103/2022
Registration Date
19-03-2022
Court
Munsiff Court, Kochi
Judge
2-Addl.Munsiff Kochi
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sindhu
Adv. Safeena V.J
Respondent(s)
M/s Ambedkar Cultural Forum
Corporation of Cochin
Assistant Executive Engineer
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Addl.Munsiff Kochi
Further evidence
Further evidence
Further evidence
Plaintiff/Petitioner Evidence
for evidence.
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 06-04-2026 | Further evidence | |
| 31-03-2026 | Further evidence | |
| 24-03-2026 | Further evidence | |
| 17-03-2026 | Plaintiff/Petitioner Evidence | |
| 13-03-2026 | for evidence. |
Interim Orders
Summary: The petition for temporary injunction filed by Sindhu (plaintiff) against Ambedkar Cultural Forum and others was dismissed on October 7, 2024, by the Munsiff Court in Kochi. The petitioner sought to prevent the respondents from constructing a compound wall around a property (Petition B schedule), claiming she had a 50-year prescriptive easement right to use an adjacent motorable pathway. However, the court found that the petitioner's own settlement deed revealed the western boundary of her property was a "thodu" (waterway) covered with concrete only 2.5 years ago, not the older pathway she claimed, and that she had an alternative eastern access route. The court ruled the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case and suppressed material facts, dismissing the petition with costs awarded to the first respondent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The petition for temporary injunction filed by Sindhu (plaintiff) against Ambedkar Cultural Forum and others was dismissed on October 7, 2024, by the Munsiff Court in Kochi. The petitioner sought to prevent the respondents from constructing a compound wall around a property (Petition B schedule), claiming she had a 50-year prescriptive easement right to use an adjacent motorable pathway. However, the court found that the petitioner's own settlement deed revealed the western boundary of her property was a "thodu" (waterway) covered with concrete only 2.5 years ago, not the older pathway she claimed, and that she had an alternative eastern access route. The court ruled the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case and suppressed material facts, dismissing the petition with costs awarded to the first respondent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts