Sujith vs Nainapanicker Advocate - Saju George — 100033/2024

Case under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 96,Order 41, Rule 1. Disposed: Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED on 31st March 2026.

Case disposed

AS - CIVIL APPEAL

CNR: KLKM030009232024

e-Filing Number

29-08-2024

Filing Number

100357/2024

Filing Date

29-Aug-2024

Registration No

100033/2024

Registration Date

29-Aug-2024

Court

WAKF Tribunal, Kollam

Judge

1-III Addl.SessionsJudge,Kollam

Decision Date

31-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 96,Order 41, Rule 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sujith

    Adv. I Stevenson

  2. 2.Annet @ Dr. Annette Mathews

    Adv. I Stevenson,I Stevenson

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Nainapanicker Advocate - Saju George

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 31-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: AS No. 33/2024 The appellate court partially allowed the defendants' appeal against a trial court injunction order in a right-of-way dispute. While confirming the injunction protecting the plaintiff's access to their property, the court reduced the protected pathway width from the claimed 7 feet to 5 feet based on the Advocate Commissioner's survey findings (1.27-1.60 metres). The court also allowed defendants to construct a boundary wall at the 5-foot mark. Notably, both parties bear their own costs due to the plaintiff's suppression of material facts about the demolished boundary wall. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 31-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    III Addl.SessionsJudge,Kollam

  4. 23-Mar-2026

    Order/Judgement

    III Addl.SessionsJudge,Kollam

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    For Hearing

    III Addl.SessionsJudge,Kollam

  6. 23-Feb-2026

    For Hearing

    III Addl.SessionsJudge,Kollam

  7. 20-Jan-2026

    For Hearing

    III Addl.SessionsJudge,Kollam

  8. 07-Jan-2026

    For Hearing

    III Addl.SessionsJudge,Kollam

  9. 03-Dec-2025

    For Hearing

    III Addl.SessionsJudge,Kollam

  10. 03-Nov-2025

    Await Records

    III Addl.SessionsJudge,Kollam

  11. 11-Aug-2025

    Await Lcr

    III Addl.SessionsJudge,Kollam

  12. 08-Aug-2025

    For Hearing

    III Addl.SessionsJudge,Kollam

  13. 16-Jul-2025

    For Hearing

    III Addl.SessionsJudge,Kollam

  14. 14-Jul-2025

    Call with IA

    III Addl.SessionsJudge,Kollam

  15. 08-Jul-2025

    Call with IA

    III Addl.SessionsJudge,Kollam

  16. 05-Jul-2025

    Call with IA

    III Addl.SessionsJudge,Kollam

  17. 25-Jun-2025

    Call with IA

    III Addl.SessionsJudge,Kollam

  18. 28-May-2025

    Call with IA

    III Addl.SessionsJudge,Kollam

  19. 20-Feb-2025

    Call with IA

    III Addl.SessionsJudge,Kollam

  20. 20-Jan-2025

    Call with IA

    III Addl.SessionsJudge,Kollam

  21. 12-Nov-2024

    Call with IA

    III Addl.SessionsJudge,Kollam

  22. 05-Sep-2024

    Call with IA

    III Addl.SessionsJudge,Kollam

  23. 04-Sep-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  24. 29-Aug-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 100033/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: AS No. 33/2024 The appellate court partially allowed the defendants' appeal against a trial court injunction order in a right-of-way dispute. While confirming the injunction protecting the plaintiff's access to their property, the court reduced the protected pathway width from the claimed 7 feet to 5 feet based on the Advocate Commissioner's survey findings (1.27-1.60 metres). The court also allowed defendants to construct a boundary wall at the 5-foot mark. Notably, both parties bear their own costs due to the plaintiff's suppression of material facts about the demolished boundary wall. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case