V.M.Nanu vs Vinodan Advocate - RAMACHANDRAN.K — 102/2020
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Disposed: Contested--DECREED on 10th March 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLKK230002212020
Filing Number
217/2020
Filing Date
30-11-2020
Registration No
102/2020
Registration Date
30-11-2020
Court
Munsiff Court, Payyoli
Judge
1-Munsiff-Magistrate
Decision Date
10th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DECREED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
V.M.Nanu
Adv. HASHICK.P.P
Karthyayani
Respondent(s)
Vinodan Advocate - RAMACHANDRAN.K
Shiji
Adv. RAMACHANDRAN.K
Adarsh
Adv. RAMACHANDRAN.K
Sudheer
Adv. RAMACHANDRAN.K
Kavitha
Adv. RAMACHANDRAN.K
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Munsiff-Magistrate
Disposed
Order/ Judgement
Order/ Judgement
For further hearing
For further hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 07-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 25-02-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 24-02-2026 | For further hearing |
| 23-02-2026 | For further hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
Judgement
Interim Orders
The Munsiff-Magistrate Court at Payyoli dismissed Original Suit No. 102/2020 for default with costs on March 4, 2023. The plaintiffs failed to appear for hearing, did not present evidence, and no proof affidavit was filed despite the advocate being appointed. The court found no steps were taken to appoint an Advocate Commissioner as per prior orders, warranting dismissal of the suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Munsiff-Magistrate Court at Payyoli dismissed Original Suit No. 102/2020 for default with costs on March 4, 2023. The plaintiffs failed to appear for hearing, did not present evidence, and no proof affidavit was filed despite the advocate being appointed. The court found no steps were taken to appoint an Advocate Commissioner as per prior orders, warranting dismissal of the suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts