Muraleedhara Pai K R vs Geetha Anand Advocate - RAJU JOSEPH — 200184/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section order 7 rule 1 and 26. Status: Call with IA. Next hearing: 10th April 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLER250004072024
Next Hearing
10th April 2026
e-Filing Number
25-07-2024
Filing Number
200427/2024
Filing Date
26-07-2024
Registration No
200184/2024
Registration Date
26-07-2024
Court
Munsiff Court, Kochi
Judge
2-Addl.Munsiff Kochi
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Muraleedhara Pai K R
Adv. ANIL KUMAR A, BALAMURALIKRISHNA C U
G Jaya
Adv. ANIL KUMAR A,BALAMURALIKRISHNA C U
Lakshmi Priya K M Pai
Adv. ANIL KUMAR A,BALAMURALIKRISHNA C U
Respondent(s)
Geetha Anand Advocate - RAJU JOSEPH
Vinod Anand
Rajesh Anand
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Addl.Munsiff Kochi
Call with IA
Call with IA
Call with IA
Call with IA
Call with IA
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | Call with IA |
| 19-03-2026 | Call with IA |
| 13-03-2026 | Call with IA |
| 11-03-2026 | Call with IA |
| 07-03-2026 | Call with IA |
Interim Orders
Case Summary I.A. No. 13/2025 in O.S. No. 184/2024 – Court of the Munsiff, Kochi Petition Dismissed Without Cost The defendants' petition to implead Kochi Thirumala Devasom as an additional party in an injunction suit was dismissed. The court found that the defendants failed to produce prima facie evidence that the Devasom owns the disputed 2 cents of land, and concluded that since the suit involves only injunctive relief (not ownership adjudication), the Devasom is not a necessary party under CPC Order I Rule 10(2). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary I.A. No. 13/2025 in O.S. No. 184/2024 – Court of the Munsiff, Kochi Petition Dismissed Without Cost The defendants' petition to implead Kochi Thirumala Devasom as an additional party in an injunction suit was dismissed. The court found that the defendants failed to produce prima facie evidence that the Devasom owns the disputed 2 cents of land, and concluded that since the suit involves only injunctive relief (not ownership adjudication), the Devasom is not a necessary party under CPC Order I Rule 10(2). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts