Sindhu Mathew vs K J Joseph Advocate - George A.V — 1800262/2024
Case under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section SECTION26ORDER7RULE1. Status: For commission report. Next hearing: 23rd May 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLID180003832024
Next Hearing
23rd May 2026
e-Filing Number
18-12-2024
Filing Number
1800525/2024
Filing Date
18-12-2024
Registration No
1800262/2024
Registration Date
18-12-2024
Court
Munsiff Court, Peerumedu
Judge
1-Munsiff, Peermade
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sindhu Mathew
Adv. SHINE VARGHESE
Respondent(s)
K J Joseph Advocate - George A.V
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Munsiff, Peermade
For commission report
Written Statement
Written Statement
Written Statement
Written Statement
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | For commission report | |
| 28-02-2026 | Written Statement | |
| 05-02-2026 | Written Statement | |
| 12-12-2025 | Written Statement | |
| 03-10-2025 | Written Statement |
Interim Orders
Court Order Summary Interlocutory Application (IA No. 2/2024) - DISMISSED The Munsiff Court in Peermade dismissed the plaintiff's petition seeking temporary injunction and mandatory relief to remove an iron handrail installed by the defendant on a disputed passage. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, the balance of convenience did not favor interim relief, and granting such relief would essentially decree the suit prematurely, prejudging the title and possession questions. However, both parties are directed to maintain status quo regarding the disputed structures until trial disposal, with the suit to proceed on priority basis with expedited pleadings and evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Order Summary Interlocutory Application (IA No. 2/2024) - DISMISSED The Munsiff Court in Peermade dismissed the plaintiff's petition seeking temporary injunction and mandatory relief to remove an iron handrail installed by the defendant on a disputed passage. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, the balance of convenience did not favor interim relief, and granting such relief would essentially decree the suit prematurely, prejudging the title and possession questions. However, both parties are directed to maintain status quo regarding the disputed structures until trial disposal, with the suit to proceed on priority basis with expedited pleadings and evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts