K J Mathew vs Georgekutty D. Kochumuttom Advocate - PAUL, BABITHA T H, BABITHA T HDAYANA PAUL, — 300115/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Section26OVIIR1TO7. Status: Appearance Of Parties u/s 89 of CPC. Next hearing: 20th May 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLER510002712025
Next Hearing
20th May 2026
e-Filing Number
01-04-2025
Filing Number
304/2025
Filing Date
01-04-2025
Registration No
300115/2025
Registration Date
01-04-2025
Court
Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha
Judge
1-Munsiff
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
K J Mathew
Adv. S Asokan
Gracy Mathew
Adv. S Asokan
Respondent(s)
Georgekutty D. Kochumuttom Advocate - PAUL, BABITHA T H, BABITHA T HDAYANA PAUL,
Dolphy Ajo
Adv. PAUL,BABITHA T H DAYANA PAUL
Alphy D. Kochumuttom
Adv. PAUL,BABITHA T H DAYANA PAUL
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Munsiff
Appearance Of Parties u/s 89 of CPC
Written Statement
Order/Judgement
Orders in IA
For commission report
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Appearance Of Parties u/s 89 of CPC | |
| 11-12-2025 | Written Statement | |
| 08-12-2025 | Order/Judgement | |
| 25-11-2025 | Orders in IA | |
| 21-11-2025 | For commission report |
Interim Orders
Summary The Court of Munsiff, Muvattupuzha allowed the petition in part and granted a temporary prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from altering the present nature and position of the C schedule road as documented in commissioned reports. The court noted the dispute involves a claimed easement right through defendants' property, but declined to definitively determine the validity of the 1988 agreement or forgery allegations at this interim stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Court of Munsiff, Muvattupuzha allowed the petition in part and granted a temporary prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from altering the present nature and position of the C schedule road as documented in commissioned reports. The court noted the dispute involves a claimed easement right through defendants' property, but declined to definitively determine the validity of the 1988 agreement or forgery allegations at this interim stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts