Jibi Padmanabhan vs Paulose Advocate - THOMAS A C, DIANA VARGHESE — 300139/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section section 26 of order 7 rule 1. Status: Objection. Next hearing: 01st June 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLER510003022025
Next Hearing
01st June 2026
e-Filing Number
10-04-2025
Filing Number
339/2025
Filing Date
11-04-2025
Registration No
300139/2025
Registration Date
11-04-2025
Court
Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha
Judge
1-Munsiff
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Jibi Padmanabhan
Adv. RAMESH N
Respondent(s)
Paulose Advocate - THOMAS A C, DIANA VARGHESE
Saramma
Adv. THOMAS A C,DIANA VARGHESE
Saji Varkey
Adv. THOMAS A C,DIANA VARGHESE
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Munsiff
Objection
Written Statement
Orders in IA
For further hearing
Objection to CR
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Objection | |
| 11-12-2025 | Written Statement | |
| 27-11-2025 | Orders in IA | |
| 20-11-2025 | For further hearing | |
| 14-11-2025 | Objection to CR |
Interim Orders
Summary: The Court of Munsiff, Muvattupuzha dismissed both interim applications (I.A. 1/2025 and I.A. 5/2025) seeking temporary prohibitory injunctions in a property dispute case. The Court held that the plaintiff had no prima facie case for relief regarding a disputed road (B schedule road) and that the defendants failed to establish grounds for injunction to prevent timber transportation, as no evidence showed such use would damage the road itself. The Court noted that the plaintiff's father had omitted similar relief claims in an earlier dismissed suit (O.S. 531/2013) and observed inconsistencies in the plaintiff's stance regarding the road's location and status. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Court of Munsiff, Muvattupuzha dismissed both interim applications (I.A. 1/2025 and I.A. 5/2025) seeking temporary prohibitory injunctions in a property dispute case. The Court held that the plaintiff had no prima facie case for relief regarding a disputed road (B schedule road) and that the defendants failed to establish grounds for injunction to prevent timber transportation, as no evidence showed such use would damage the road itself. The Court noted that the plaintiff's father had omitted similar relief claims in an earlier dismissed suit (O.S. 531/2013) and observed inconsistencies in the plaintiff's stance regarding the road's location and status. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts