Aleyamma vs P.P.Paulose Advocate - Jayalal M — 200083/2013
Case under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 26. Status: FOR HEARING. Next hearing: 29th May 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLER500000502013
Next Hearing
29th May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
200083/2013
Filing Date
08-04-2013
Registration No
200083/2013
Registration Date
08-04-2013
Court
Sub Court , Muvattupuzha
Judge
1-SUB JUDGE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Aleyamma
Adv. Joshy Joseph, Joshy Joseph, PRADEEP R
Cherian
Adv. Jayalal M
Respondent(s)
P.P.Paulose Advocate - Jayalal M
Babu
Mary
Adv. N Ramesh
Baby
Adv. N Ramesh
M.J.Salomy
Adv. N Ramesh
Alice John
Adv. N Ramesh
Dolly John
Adv. N Ramesh
N.M.Pareeth
Mamachan Joseph
Joseph@Negul
Ibrahim
Aliyar
M.N. Pankajakshan Nair
Adv. N.N. Elayath
Arun Roy
Adv. C.R. reghunathan
Reji KUriakose
Adv. Ajai Mathew
Mereena Roy
Basil Roy
Adv. N N Elayath , Ajsal Meeras
Town Central Mahayuddeen Juma Masijd
Adv. Raju P. V
Hearing History
Judge: 1-SUB JUDGE
FOR HEARING
FOR HEARING
FOR HEARING
FOR HEARING
FOR HEARING
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-04-2026 | FOR HEARING | |
| 27-03-2026 | FOR HEARING | |
| 17-03-2026 | FOR HEARING | |
| 09-03-2026 | FOR HEARING | |
| 25-02-2026 | FOR HEARING |
Interim Orders
Summary: The Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court at Muvattupuzha dismissed the petitioners' application (I.A. 21/2024) seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and Taluk Surveyor to conduct a fresh survey of scheduled properties in an ongoing civil suit (O.S. 83/2013). The court found the petition devoid of merit, noting that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any new matter requiring ascertainment or any error in the previous commission report filed in 2014, and that merely adding new defendants did not justify a fresh survey without concrete evidence of deficiency in the existing report. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court at Muvattupuzha dismissed the petitioners' application (I.A. 21/2024) seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and Taluk Surveyor to conduct a fresh survey of scheduled properties in an ongoing civil suit (O.S. 83/2013). The court found the petition devoid of merit, noting that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any new matter requiring ascertainment or any error in the previous commission report filed in 2014, and that merely adding new defendants did not justify a fresh survey without concrete evidence of deficiency in the existing report. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts