Revathi Nanu vs Sudheesh — 300035/2019
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26 rule 7. Status: For further hearing. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLKK300001342019
Next Hearing
15th June 2026
Filing Number
300035/2019
Filing Date
01-03-2019
Registration No
300035/2019
Registration Date
01-03-2019
Court
Munsiff Court, Vadakara
Judge
1-Munsiff
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Revathi Nanu
Adv. C.Subramanian and P. Anoop
Respondent(s)
Sudheesh
M/s Elmach pakages)India) Ltd.
Adv. B. Krishnan
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Munsiff
For further hearing
For further hearing
Judge on leave / duty
For further hearing
For further hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-03-2026 | For further hearing |
| 16-03-2026 | For further hearing |
| 02-03-2026 | Judge on leave / duty |
| 16-02-2026 | For further hearing |
| 28-01-2026 | For further hearing |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: O.S. No. 35/2019 The Munsiff Court of Vatakara decreed the plaintiff Revathi Nanu's suit for permanent prohibitory injunction on 23 June 2022. The court restrained defendants Sudheesh and M/s Elmach Packages (India) Ltd. from evicting the plaintiff and her family from the property except through due process of law. The court found the Rs.42 lakh financial transaction between the plaintiff's husband and the defendants' representative to be true, establishing the plaintiff's right to occupy the property. The counter-claim was dismissed for default as the counter-claim plaintiff failed to appear for trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: O.S. No. 35/2019 The Munsiff Court of Vatakara decreed the plaintiff Revathi Nanu's suit for permanent prohibitory injunction on 23 June 2022. The court restrained defendants Sudheesh and M/s Elmach Packages (India) Ltd. from evicting the plaintiff and her family from the property except through due process of law. The court found the Rs.42 lakh financial transaction between the plaintiff's husband and the defendants' representative to be true, establishing the plaintiff's right to occupy the property. The counter-claim was dismissed for default as the counter-claim plaintiff failed to appear for trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts