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.

Order/ Judgement Next hearing 19-May-2026 this date has passed

OS - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KLER420001462017

Filing Number

300166/2017

Filing Date

07-Mar-2017

Registration No

300100/2017

Registration Date

08-Mar-2017

Court

Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor

Judge

1-Munsiff Perumbavoor

Last updated 14-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section S26,O7,R1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Rojer Antony

    Adv. G Santhosh Kumar, T V Eldo

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Vasudevan Nair Advocate - M K Jayapalan

Case History

  1. 19-May-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 07-Apr-2026

    Order/ Judgement

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  3. 31-Mar-2026

    Order/ Judgement

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  4. 23-Mar-2026

    Order/ Judgement

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    Order/Judgement

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  6. 09-Mar-2026

    Order/ Judgement

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  7. 03-Mar-2026

    Order/Judgement

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  8. 27-Feb-2026

    For further hearing

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  9. 18-Feb-2026

    For further hearing

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  10. 17-Feb-2026

    For Hearing

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  11. 12-Feb-2026

    For Hearing

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  12. 28-Jan-2026

    For Hearing

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  13. 21-Jan-2026

    Defendant/Respondent Evidence

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  14. 17-Jan-2026

    Further evidence

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  15. 07-Jan-2026

    for evidence.

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  16. 11-Dec-2025

    Further evidence

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  17. 13-Nov-2025

    OrderView PDF

    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.

  18. 13-Nov-2025

    Listed to

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  19. 25-Oct-2025

    Orders in IA

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  20. 18-Oct-2025

    Orders in IA

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  21. 15-Oct-2025

    For Objection and hearing

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  22. 16-Sep-2025

    Listed to

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  23. 12-Aug-2025

    Listed to

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  24. 30-Jul-2025

    For Steps

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  25. 17-Jul-2025

    For Steps

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  26. 24-Jun-2025

    For commission report

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  27. 08-Apr-2025

    Report on mediation

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  28. 14-Mar-2025

    Report on mediation

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  29. 28-Feb-2025

    For reports

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  30. 19-Feb-2025

    For reports

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  31. 24-Jan-2025

    For reports

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  32. 08-Jan-2025

    For commission report

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  33. 17-Dec-2024

    For commission report

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  34. 16-Nov-2024

    For commission report

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  35. 08-Oct-2024

    For commission report

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  36. 13-Sep-2024

    For commission report

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  37. 16-Aug-2024

    For commission report

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  38. 17-Jul-2024

    Issue notice

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  39. 21-Jun-2024

    Issue notice

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  40. 04-Apr-2024

    Await report

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  41. 16-Mar-2024

    Await report

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  42. 14-Feb-2024

    Call with IA

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  43. 06-Feb-2024

    For Objection and hearing

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  44. 04-Jan-2024

    For Steps

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  45. 01-Dec-2023

    Verify and report

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  46. 17-Nov-2023

    For Objection and hearing

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  47. 02-Nov-2023

    Issues

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  48. 04-Oct-2023

    Call on

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  49. 16-Aug-2023

    Steps if any

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  50. 15-Jul-2023

    Written Statement

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  51. 20-Jun-2023

    Restored

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  52. 20-Jun-2023

    Call on

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  53. 20-Jun-2023

    Call on

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  54. 09-Apr-2019

    JudgementView PDF

  55. 09-Apr-2019

    Disposed

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  56. 21-Feb-2019

    Call on

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  57. 07-Nov-2018

    OrderView PDF

  58. 07-Nov-2018

    Call on

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  59. 13-Sep-2018

    Call with IA

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  60. 16-Jun-2018

    Issues

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  61. 16-Mar-2018

    Written Statement

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  62. 06-Jan-2018

    Written Statement

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  63. 16-Nov-2017

    Written Statement

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  64. 19-Sep-2017

    Written Statement

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  65. 17-Jul-2017

    Written Statement

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  66. 07-Jun-2017

    Return of summons

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  67. 30-Mar-2017

    Return of summons

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  68. 22-Mar-2017

    Objection

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  69. 08-Mar-2017

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  70. 07-Mar-2017

    Case filed

    Registration No. 300100/2017

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case