Laly Kunjunmon vs Sadanandan Advocate - T P Issac — 300308/2012
Case under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section OrderVIIrule1sec.26. Status: Objection to CR. Next hearing: 20th May 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLER420003022012
Next Hearing
20th May 2026
Filing Number
300308/2012
Filing Date
20-10-2012
Registration No
300308/2012
Registration Date
20-10-2012
Court
Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor
Judge
1-Munsiff Perumbavoor
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Laly Kunjunmon
Adv. K Balachandran
Respondent(s)
Sadanandan Advocate - T P Issac
Sajeevan
Adv. T P Issac
Raveendran
Adv. Anil Kumar s.
Padmaja
Adv. T P Issac
Vishnu Sadanandan
Adv. T P Issac
Vani Sadanandan
Adv. T P Issac
Indira Sajeevan
Adv. T P Issac
Aswathy Sajeevan
Adv. T P Issac
Aravind Sajeevan
Adv. T P Issac
Sivasankarapilla
Adv. M Rajendran
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Munsiff Perumbavoor
Objection to CR
For Steps
For Steps
For Steps
For commission report
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | Objection to CR |
| 20-02-2026 | For Steps |
| 27-01-2026 | For Steps |
| 07-01-2026 | For Steps |
| 12-12-2025 | For commission report |
Interim Orders
Summary: The petition filed by Defendant No. 10 (Sivasankarapilla) challenging the Advocate Commissioner's report in a property dispute was allowed and the commission report was remitted back. The court found that the Commissioner failed to comply with specific directions issued in order IA 1859/2015, particularly regarding proper identification of properties, marking of a disputed way, and consideration of physical boundaries and acquisition plans. A new Advocate Commissioner (Adv. K.C Muraleedharan) was appointed to re-conduct the commission with directions to comply with the court's earlier orders, with the petitioner directed to deposit Rs. 4,000 and Rs. 2,500 as remuneration for the Commissioner and Surveyor respectively. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The petition filed by Defendant No. 10 (Sivasankarapilla) challenging the Advocate Commissioner's report in a property dispute was allowed and the commission report was remitted back. The court found that the Commissioner failed to comply with specific directions issued in order IA 1859/2015, particularly regarding proper identification of properties, marking of a disputed way, and consideration of physical boundaries and acquisition plans. A new Advocate Commissioner (Adv. K.C Muraleedharan) was appointed to re-conduct the commission with directions to comply with the court's earlier orders, with the petitioner directed to deposit Rs. 4,000 and Rs. 2,500 as remuneration for the Commissioner and Surveyor respectively. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts