ROBERT M.T vs JESTIN JOHN Advocate - DENNY JOSEPH — 194/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Status: Report on mediation. Next hearing: 26th May 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLER250004102025
Next Hearing
26th May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
393/2025
Filing Date
22-09-2025
Registration No
194/2025
Registration Date
23-09-2025
Court
Munsiff Court, Kochi
Judge
2-Addl.Munsiff Kochi
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
ROBERT M.T
Adv. ALFRED O J
Respondent(s)
JESTIN JOHN Advocate - DENNY JOSEPH
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Addl.Munsiff Kochi
Report on mediation
Appearance Of Parties
Objection to CR
For commission report
For commission report
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-04-2026 | Report on mediation | |
| 25-03-2026 | Appearance Of Parties | |
| 09-03-2026 | Objection to CR | |
| 12-02-2026 | For commission report | |
| 20-01-2026 | For commission report |
Interim Orders
Summary: The petition for temporary prohibitory injunction filed by building contractor Robert M T against defendant Jestin John was dismissed without costs by the Munsiff Court, Kochi on 7th November 2025. The court found that the petitioner failed to establish the three essential ingredients required under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC: no prima facie case was made out since the petitioner's rights were limited to monetary claims which could be adjudicated in the main suit; the balance of convenience favored the defendant whose residential construction (at lintel stage) would suffer irreparable loss if halted; and the petitioner's injury was compensable in monetary terms, not irreparable. The dispute arose from a construction contract dispute involving alleged non-payment and wrongful termination by the defendant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The petition for temporary prohibitory injunction filed by building contractor Robert M T against defendant Jestin John was dismissed without costs by the Munsiff Court, Kochi on 7th November 2025. The court found that the petitioner failed to establish the three essential ingredients required under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC: no prima facie case was made out since the petitioner's rights were limited to monetary claims which could be adjudicated in the main suit; the balance of convenience favored the defendant whose residential construction (at lintel stage) would suffer irreparable loss if halted; and the petitioner's injury was compensable in monetary terms, not irreparable. The dispute arose from a construction contract dispute involving alleged non-payment and wrongful termination by the defendant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts