Nherolimeethal Noufiya vs Shaji Advocate - JISHINE BABU — 158/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section section 26 Order VII Rule 1. Status: For hearing on IA. Next hearing: 27th June 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLKK320006252025
Next Hearing
27th June 2026
Filing Number
393/2025
Filing Date
02-12-2025
Registration No
158/2025
Registration Date
03-12-2025
Court
Munsiff Court, Nadapuram
Judge
1-Munsiff Magistrate
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Nherolimeethal Noufiya
Adv. ALI.V
Respondent(s)
Shaji Advocate - JISHINE BABU
Bindu
Adv. JISHINE BABU
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Munsiff Magistrate
For hearing on IA
For hearing on IA
Call with IA
For Objection and hearing
Issues
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-06-2026 | For hearing on IA |
| 25-05-2026 | For hearing on IA |
| 18-05-2026 | Call with IA |
| 24-03-2026 | For Objection and hearing |
| 16-03-2026 | Issues |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: OS 158/2025 (IA 3/2025) Nherolimeethal Noufiya sought a permanent injunction against neighbors Shaji and Bindu to prevent them from filling soil on an adjacent pathway (Schedule B property), which she claimed would block natural rainwater drainage onto her property (Schedule A). The court granted a status quo order rather than a full injunction, directing both parties to maintain the status quo as of the suit filing date. While the court found the petitioner's apprehension credible through an advocate commissioner's report documenting soil filling, it declined complete injunction relief because the petitioner failed to establish possession or authority over the disputed Schedule B property, and the respondents produced no documents proving their possession either. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: OS 158/2025 (IA 3/2025) Nherolimeethal Noufiya sought a permanent injunction against neighbors Shaji and Bindu to prevent them from filling soil on an adjacent pathway (Schedule B property), which she claimed would block natural rainwater drainage onto her property (Schedule A). The court granted a status quo order rather than a full injunction, directing both parties to maintain the status quo as of the suit filing date. While the court found the petitioner's apprehension credible through an advocate commissioner's report documenting soil filling, it declined complete injunction relief because the petitioner failed to establish possession or authority over the disputed Schedule B property, and the respondents produced no documents proving their possession either. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts