LEKSHMI REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER VIJU vs K. ANI Advocate - FEROZE — 49/2026

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26 ORDER IV, VI AND VII RULE. Status: Written Statement. Next hearing: 06th July 2026.

Written Statement Next hearing 06-Jul-2026

OS - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KLKM130000572026

Filing Number

48/2026

Filing Date

28-Jan-2026

Registration No

49/2026

Registration Date

28-Jan-2026

Court

Munsiff Court, Punalur

Judge

1-Munsiff, Punalur

Last updated 21-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 26 ORDER IV, VI AND VII RULE
Ia/1/2026 Classification : Injunction Application Section LEKSHMI REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER VIJUK. ANI
Ia/2/2026 Classification : Commission Application Section LEKSHMI REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER VIJUK. ANI
Ia/3/2026 Classification : Application to Accept Power of Attorney Section LEKSHMI REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER VIJUK. ANI
Ia/4/2026 Classification : Petition to Accept Photocopy Section LEKSHMI REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER VIJUK. ANI
Ia/5/2026 Classification : Injunction Extension Petition Section LEKSHMI REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER VIJUK. ANI

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.LEKSHMI REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER VIJU

    Adv. PRADEEP KUMAR C M

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.K. ANI Advocate - FEROZE

  2. 2.SRIRAM

    Adv. FEROZE

Case History

  1. 06-Jul-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 07-Apr-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: OS 49/2026 Court: Munsiff Court, Punalur | Date: 7 April 2026 Outcome: The interim application for perpetual injunction was dismissed. The court found that petitioner Lekshmi failed to establish a prima facie case regarding her right to construct a compound wall on a disputed basement located on the northern boundary of her property. While the respondents (K. Ani and Sriram) did not challenge her title to the main property, they disputed her ownership of the basement structure. Since the petitioner produced no documentary evidence substantiating her right over the northern basement, the court held she could not satisfy the essential requirement for interim relief. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-Apr-2026

    Order

  4. 07-Apr-2026

    Written Statement

    Munsiff, Punalur

  5. 28-Mar-2026

    Orders in IA

    Munsiff, Punalur

  6. 18-Mar-2026

    For hearing on IA

    Munsiff, Punalur

  7. 12-Feb-2026

    Objection

    Munsiff, Punalur

  8. 28-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 28-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 49/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: OS 49/2026 Court: Munsiff Court, Punalur | Date: 7 April 2026 Outcome: The interim application for perpetual injunction was dismissed. The court found that petitioner Lekshmi failed to establish a prima facie case regarding her right to construct a compound wall on a disputed basement located on the northern boundary of her property. While the respondents (K. Ani and Sriram) did not challenge her title to the main property, they disputed her ownership of the basement structure. Since the petitioner produced no documentary evidence substantiating her right over the northern basement, the court held she could not satisfy the essential requirement for interim relief. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case