Rojer Antony vs Vasudevan Nair Advocate - M K Jayapalan — 300100/2017
Case under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section S26,O7,R1. Status: Order/ Judgement. Next hearing: 19th May 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLER420001462017
Next Hearing
19th May 2026
Filing Number
300166/2017
Filing Date
07-03-2017
Registration No
300100/2017
Registration Date
08-03-2017
Court
Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor
Judge
1-Munsiff Perumbavoor
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Rojer Antony
Adv. G Santhosh Kumar, T V Eldo
Respondent(s)
Vasudevan Nair Advocate - M K Jayapalan
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Munsiff Perumbavoor
Order/ Judgement
Order/ Judgement
Order/ Judgement
Order/Judgement
Order/ Judgement
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-04-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 31-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 23-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 13-03-2026 | Order/Judgement |
| 09-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Petition Dismissed The petition seeking remittal of the Advocate Commissioner's survey report and plan was dismissed as lacking merit. The court found that the Commissioner had adequately identified and reflected boundary lines and possession lines relevant to the property dispute, including markings (A and B) corresponding to the claimed pathways, despite no physically separated pathways existing on the ground. The court upheld the Commissioner's measurements and findings regarding the A-schedule property extent and rejected the petitioner's contentions regarding missing pathway delineations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Petition Dismissed The petition seeking remittal of the Advocate Commissioner's survey report and plan was dismissed as lacking merit. The court found that the Commissioner had adequately identified and reflected boundary lines and possession lines relevant to the property dispute, including markings (A and B) corresponding to the claimed pathways, despite no physically separated pathways existing on the ground. The court upheld the Commissioner's measurements and findings regarding the A-schedule property extent and rejected the petitioner's contentions regarding missing pathway delineations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts