Jacob K J vs Maruvakkadu Padashekhara Karshaka Union Advocate - ANIL KUMAR A, MARY CRESCENT, MARY CRESCENTBALAMURALIKRISHNA C U, — 200271/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section SECTION 26 READ WITH ORDER VII RULE 1 &2. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT. on 07th March 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLER250006312024
e-Filing Number
30-11-2024
Filing Number
200679/2024
Filing Date
30-Nov-2024
Registration No
200271/2024
Registration Date
30-Nov-2024
Court
Munsiff Court, Kochi
Judge
2-Addl.Munsiff Kochi
Decision Date
07-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT.
Last updated 27-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Jacob K J
Adv. SHIBU K P, SULEKHA P A, APARNA KANAK K, HARISHMA P K, SIMMY JOSEPH
Respondent(s)
-
1.Maruvakkadu Padashekhara Karshaka Union Advocate - ANIL KUMAR A, MARY CRESCENT, MARY CRESCENTBALAMURALIKRISHNA C U,
-
2.A T Charles
Adv. ANIL KUMAR A,BALAMURALIKRISHNA C U MARY CRESCENT
-
3.P M Rajeev
Adv. ANIL KUMAR A,BALAMURALIKRISHNA C U MARY CRESCENT
-
4.V L Augustine
Adv. ANIL KUMAR A,BALAMURALIKRISHNA C U MARY CRESCENT
-
5.P M Thankappan
-
6.K P Ramachandran
-
7.M D Ashokan
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
07-Mar-2026
Judgement
-
07-Mar-2026
Disposed
Addl.Munsiff Kochi
-
04-Mar-2026
for evidence.
Addl.Munsiff Kochi
-
03-Mar-2026
for evidence.
Addl.Munsiff Kochi
-
02-Mar-2026
for evidence.
Addl.Munsiff Kochi
-
27-Feb-2026
Order
-
27-Feb-2026
for evidence.
Addl.Munsiff Kochi
-
26-Feb-2026
Orders in IA
Addl.Munsiff Kochi
-
24-Feb-2026
Orders in IA
Addl.Munsiff Kochi
-
17-Feb-2026
Orders in IA
Addl.Munsiff Kochi
-
16-Feb-2026
Objection
Addl.Munsiff Kochi
-
07-Feb-2026
Objection
Addl.Munsiff Kochi
-
04-Feb-2026
Objection
Addl.Munsiff Kochi
-
03-Feb-2026
Objection
Addl.Munsiff Kochi
-
02-Feb-2026
For Objection and hearing
Addl.Munsiff Kochi
-
17-Dec-2025
Final OrderView PDF
Case Summary The Munsiff Court of Kochi granted the defendants' petition to conduct a joint trial of two related money-recovery suits (OS No. 271/2024 and OS No. 214/2024) involving the same defendants and substantially identical facts and legal contentions. The court found that despite different plaintiffs (father and daughter) and claim amounts, the underlying transactions, defendant defenses (alleging account manipulation by the former association secretary), and evidence were essentially identical, making joint trial efficient and preventing multiplicity of proceedings. Each party retains the right to present distinct evidence for each suit to avoid prejudice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
17-Dec-2025
Listed to
Addl.Munsiff Kochi
-
08-Dec-2025
For hearing on IA
Addl.Munsiff Kochi
-
03-Dec-2025
For hearing on IA
Addl.Munsiff Kochi
-
02-Dec-2025
For hearing on IA
Addl.Munsiff Kochi
-
10-Nov-2025
For hearing on IA
Addl.Munsiff Kochi
-
25-Oct-2025
For Hearing
Addl.Munsiff Kochi
-
18-Oct-2025
Call with IA
Addl.Munsiff Kochi
-
06-Oct-2025
Call with IA
Addl.Munsiff Kochi
-
15-Sep-2025
Call with IA
Addl.Munsiff Kochi
-
09-Sep-2025
Call on
Addl.Munsiff Kochi
-
13-Aug-2025
Listed to
Addl.Munsiff Kochi
-
18-Jul-2025
Bcf and steps
Addl.Munsiff Kochi
-
26-Jun-2025
Bcf and steps
Addl.Munsiff Kochi
-
24-May-2025
Issues
Addl.Munsiff Kochi
-
02-Apr-2025
For evidence
Addl.Munsiff Kochi
-
11-Mar-2025
For evidence
Addl.Munsiff Kochi
-
05-Feb-2025
Written Statement
Addl.Munsiff Kochi
-
17-Jan-2025
Call with IA
Addl.Munsiff Kochi
-
07-Jan-2025
Call with IA
Addl.Munsiff Kochi
-
20-Dec-2024
Call on
Addl.Munsiff Kochi
-
18-Dec-2024
Call on
Addl.Munsiff Kochi
-
30-Nov-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
30-Nov-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 200271/2024
Case Summary The Munsiff Court of Kochi granted the defendants' petition to conduct a joint trial of two related money-recovery suits (OS No. 271/2024 and OS No. 214/2024) involving the same defendants and substantially identical facts and legal contentions. The court found that despite different plaintiffs (father and daughter) and claim amounts, the underlying transactions, defendant defenses (alleging account manipulation by the former association secretary), and evidence were essentially identical, making joint trial efficient and preventing multiplicity of proceedings. Each party retains the right to present distinct evidence for each suit to avoid prejudice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts