Vargheese vs Kerala State — 300075/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Status: For Hearing. Next hearing: 23rd June 2026.

For Hearing Next hearing 23-Jun-2026 this date has passed

OS - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KLER420001472025

e-Filing Number

03-04-2025

Filing Number

300180/2025

Filing Date

03-Apr-2025

Registration No

300075/2025

Registration Date

04-Apr-2025

Court

Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor

Judge

1-Munsiff Perumbavoor

Last updated 14-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 26

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Vargheese

    Adv. ALIAS K M

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Kerala State

Case History

  1. 23-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 09-Mar-2026

    For Hearing

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  3. 19-Jan-2026

    Call with IA

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  4. 18-Sep-2025

    Written Statement

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  5. 18-Jun-2025

    OrderView PDF

    SUMMARY The petition for interim prohibitory injunction was allowed. The court restrained the Kerala PWD and its officials from creating new openings, altering the compound wall, or modifying the property boundary to artificially divert or intensify water flow from the public road into the petitioner's land during pendency of the suit. The court found prima facie evidence that PWD road construction could cause irreparable damage through artificial water diversion, though the order preserves natural drainage rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  6. 18-Jun-2025

    Call on

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  7. 16-Jun-2025

    Orders in IA

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  8. 04-Jun-2025

    Written Statement

    Munsiff Perumbavoor

  9. 04-Apr-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  10. 03-Apr-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 300075/2025

casestatus.in Summary

SUMMARY The petition for interim prohibitory injunction was allowed. The court restrained the Kerala PWD and its officials from creating new openings, altering the compound wall, or modifying the property boundary to artificially divert or intensify water flow from the public road into the petitioner's land during pendency of the suit. The court found prima facie evidence that PWD road construction could cause irreparable damage through artificial water diversion, though the order preserves natural drainage rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case