Seniar Hassainar vs INTUC Party — 300063/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section OrderVIIRule1. Status: Report on mediation. Next hearing: 26th June 2026.

OS - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KLER760001792025

Report on mediation

Next Hearing

26th June 2026

e-Filing Number

07-03-2025

Filing Number

300189/2025

Filing Date

10-03-2025

Registration No

300063/2025

Registration Date

10-03-2025

Court

Munsiff court Kothamangalam

Judge

1-Munsiff

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Section OrderVIIRule1

Petitioner(s)

Seniar Hassainar

Adv. Rohit S

Respondent(s)

INTUC Party

Muhammed

Adv. Adv. Sidharth S Nair

Basheer

Adv. Adv. Sidharth S Nair

Joy Chitnappilli

Adv. Adv. Sidharth S Nair

Baby

Adv. Adv. Sidharth S Nair

Shindo Varghese

Adv. Adv. Sidharth S Nair

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Munsiff

07-03-2026

Report on mediation

26-02-2026

Appearance Of Parties

26-11-2025

Appearance Of Parties

19-09-2025

Written Statement

19-07-2025

Written Statement

Interim Orders

31-05-2025
Order

Summary: The petition for temporary injunction filed by Seniar Hassainar against the INTUC party and five others has been dismissed. The Civil Judge held that since the petitioner himself admitted that the respondents had already trespassed and taken possession of part of the disputed property (plaint B schedule property), a temporary injunction—which can only prevent future wrongs—cannot be granted. The court reasoned that the injury had already occurred prior to the suit, making the discretionary relief inappropriate. Each party shall bear its own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The petition for temporary injunction filed by Seniar Hassainar against the INTUC party and five others has been dismissed. The Civil Judge held that since the petitioner himself admitted that the respondents had already trespassed and taken possession of part of the disputed property (plaint B schedule property), a temporary injunction—which can only prevent future wrongs—cannot be granted. The court reasoned that the injury had already occurred prior to the suit, making the discretionary relief inappropriate. Each party shall bear its own costs. 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

Munsiff court Kothamangalam All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case