Mohanan and one another vs Purushan Advocate - Thomas.L — 100007/2012
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Status: for evidence/. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLKM130000122012
Next Hearing
15th June 2026
Filing Number
100007/2012
Filing Date
03-01-2012
Registration No
100007/2012
Registration Date
03-01-2012
Court
Munsiff Court, Punalur
Judge
1-Munsiff, Punalur
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Mohanan and one another
Adv. S.R. Amrit
Respondent(s)
Purushan Advocate - Thomas.L
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Munsiff, Punalur
for evidence/
BCF and steps
Issues
For Replication
For hearing on IA
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-05-2026 | for evidence/ |
| 22-05-2026 | BCF and steps |
| 27-03-2026 | Issues |
| 13-03-2026 | For Replication |
| 24-02-2026 | For hearing on IA |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 100007/2012 (IA 10/2025 in OS 07/2012) The court allowed an application filed by defendant Purushothaman to implead two additional parties (Saji Mathew and Jessie Mathew) as 5th and 6th defendants in a counter claim seeking mandatory injunction. The defendant's counter claim alleges illegal constructions on a public pathway (purambokku land) in violation of Kerala Panchayath Building Rules. A survey commission report confirmed the proposed defendants possess portions of the disputed pathway, making them necessary parties to ensure proper adjudication and protect their proprietary rights. The court rejected objections that the application was filed in bad faith after 13 years, finding the newly obtained survey report provided valid grounds for impleading. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 100007/2012 (IA 10/2025 in OS 07/2012) The court allowed an application filed by defendant Purushothaman to implead two additional parties (Saji Mathew and Jessie Mathew) as 5th and 6th defendants in a counter claim seeking mandatory injunction. The defendant's counter claim alleges illegal constructions on a public pathway (purambokku land) in violation of Kerala Panchayath Building Rules. A survey commission report confirmed the proposed defendants possess portions of the disputed pathway, making them necessary parties to ensure proper adjudication and protect their proprietary rights. The court rejected objections that the application was filed in bad faith after 13 years, finding the newly obtained survey report provided valid grounds for impleading. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts