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
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
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
Report on mediation
Appearance Of Parties
Appearance Of Parties
Written Statement
Written Statement
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts