Gopi vs Kuriacko Advocate - T.P Issac — 100029/2018
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 7. Status: Defendant/Respondent Evidence. Next hearing: 30th May 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLER540000472018
Next Hearing
30th May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
100573/2018
Filing Date
27-06-2018
Registration No
100029/2018
Registration Date
27-06-2018
Court
Munsiff Court, Kolenchery
Judge
1-Munsiff Kolenchery
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Gopi
Adv. Saju M.Y
Respondent(s)
Kuriacko Advocate - T.P Issac
Ealiyas
Adv. T.P Issac
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Munsiff Kolenchery
Defendant/Respondent Evidence
Defence Evidence
Defence Evidence
for evidence.
Defence Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 04-04-2026 | Defendant/Respondent Evidence | |
| 09-03-2026 | Defence Evidence | |
| 21-02-2026 | Defence Evidence | |
| 07-02-2026 | for evidence. | |
| 15-12-2025 | Defence Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary IA No. 6/2024 in OS No. 29/2018 | Munsiff Court, Kolenchery | 8 October 2024 The petition seeking amendment of the plaint was allowed. The plaintiff in a boundary fixation suit requested to amend the plaint after discovering that the B schedule property lacked a title deed, contrary to original pleadings based on survey records and title deeds. Although the amendment was filed late with the case listed for defendant's evidence, the court permitted it, finding that trial had not commenced in the technical sense (documentary evidence and witness examination remained pending). The court held that allowing the amendment was necessary for proper adjudication and would not materially prejudice the defendant, who could file an additional written statement if needed. No costs were imposed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary IA No. 6/2024 in OS No. 29/2018 | Munsiff Court, Kolenchery | 8 October 2024 The petition seeking amendment of the plaint was allowed. The plaintiff in a boundary fixation suit requested to amend the plaint after discovering that the B schedule property lacked a title deed, contrary to original pleadings based on survey records and title deeds. Although the amendment was filed late with the case listed for defendant's evidence, the court permitted it, finding that trial had not commenced in the technical sense (documentary evidence and witness examination remained pending). The court held that allowing the amendment was necessary for proper adjudication and would not materially prejudice the defendant, who could file an additional written statement if needed. No costs were imposed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts