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

For commission report

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

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section SECTION26ORDER7RULE1
IA/4/2025 Classification : Section Sindhu MathewK J Joseph
IA/5/2025 Classification : Survey Commission Application Section Sindhu MathewK J Joseph

Petitioner(s)

Sindhu Mathew

Adv. SHINE VARGHESE

Respondent(s)

K J Joseph Advocate - George A.V

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Munsiff, Peermade

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

11-08-2025
Order

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Munsiff Court, Peerumedu All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case