Jose K J vs C P Pappachan Advocate - C.P. Udayabhanu — 200006/2019

Case under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section S26R1. Status: For hearing on IA. Next hearing: 07th April 2026.

OS - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KLER500000212019

For hearing on IA

Next Hearing

07th April 2026

Filing Number

200028/2019

Filing Date

04-02-2019

Registration No

200006/2019

Registration Date

04-02-2019

Court

Sub Court , Muvattupuzha

Judge

1-SUB JUDGE

Acts & Sections

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section S26R1
Ia/31/2025 Classification : Section C P Pappachan
Ia/32/2025 Classification : Direction Petition Section C P Pappachan
Ia/1/2026 Classification : Petition to Lift Attachment Section Jose K JC P Pappachan

Petitioner(s)

Jose K J

Adv. Sayed M Thangal, Sruthi Das, Febin Raj T. S

Respondent(s)

C P Pappachan Advocate - C.P. Udayabhanu

Hearing History

Judge: 1-SUB JUDGE

26-03-2026

For hearing on IA

13-03-2026

For hearing on IA

07-03-2026

For hearing on IA

02-03-2026

For hearing on IA

25-02-2026

For hearing on IA

Interim Orders

27-06-2019
Judgement
18-10-2022
Order
18-10-2022
Order
18-10-2022
Order
18-10-2022
Order
21-11-2024
Order
21-11-2024
Order
08-11-2024
Order
08-11-2024
Order
15-12-2023
Order
15-12-2023
Order
11-11-2024
Order
11-11-2024
Order
21-06-2024
Order
21-06-2024
Order
05-11-2024
Order
05-11-2024
Order
11-11-2024
Order
11-11-2024
Order
05-11-2024
Order
05-11-2024
Order

Summary: The petition to amend the plaint was dismissed. The court rejected the plaintiff's request to correct his age (from 45 to 59 years) and insert his father's name in the address, finding that the defendant had already disputed the plaintiff's identity in the written statement and the amendment would prejudice the defendant's defense. The court held that the plaintiff could establish his identity through documentary and oral evidence without amendment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

25-02-2026

Order

25-02-2026

Order

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The petition to amend the plaint was dismissed. The court rejected the plaintiff's request to correct his age (from 45 to 59 years) and insert his father's name in the address, finding that the defendant had already disputed the plaintiff's identity in the written statement and the amendment would prejudice the defendant's defense. The court held that the plaintiff could establish his identity through documentary and oral evidence without amendment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Sub Court , Muvattupuzha All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case