Varghese vs George Advocate - T V Eldo — 300063/2013
Case under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section Order7Rule1u/s26. Status: Stayed. Call on. Next hearing: 14th July 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLER420000532013
Next Hearing
14th July 2026
Filing Number
300063/2013
Filing Date
27-02-2013
Registration No
300063/2013
Registration Date
27-02-2013
Court
Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor
Judge
1-Munsiff Perumbavoor
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Varghese
Adv. T R Ramanadhan
Soosan Vargheese
Adv. T R Ramanadhan
Vinod Vargheese
Adv. T R Ramanadhan
Vijay Vargheese
Adv. T R Ramanadhan
Respondent(s)
George Advocate - T V Eldo
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Munsiff Perumbavoor
Stayed. Call on
Stayed. Call on
Stayed. Call on
Call on
Stayed. Call on
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Stayed. Call on |
| 19-01-2026 | Stayed. Call on |
| 08-12-2025 | Stayed. Call on |
| 22-11-2025 | Call on |
| 15-09-2025 | Stayed. Call on |
Interim Orders
Summary: The Munsiff Court of Perumbavoor delivered a common judgment in two joint property dispute suits between brothers George and Issac Varghese on March 8, 2016. OS 208/2012 (seeking boundary fixation and possession recovery) was dismissed for default because the plaintiff failed to appear, while OS 63/2013 (seeking permanent prohibitory injunction) was decreed in favor of the defendant (Issac Varghese). The court restrained Issac from alienating his property or trespassing into the plaintiff's adjoining property, and ordered no costs in either suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Munsiff Court of Perumbavoor delivered a common judgment in two joint property dispute suits between brothers George and Issac Varghese on March 8, 2016. OS 208/2012 (seeking boundary fixation and possession recovery) was dismissed for default because the plaintiff failed to appear, while OS 63/2013 (seeking permanent prohibitory injunction) was decreed in favor of the defendant (Issac Varghese). The court restrained Issac from alienating his property or trespassing into the plaintiff's adjoining property, and ordered no costs in either suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts