Thajudeen vs Thomas Chacko Advocate - VARGHESE P MATHEW — 100032/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26orderVIIRuleI. Status: for evidence.. Next hearing: 09th June 2026.

OS - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KLKM200002882025

for evidence.

Next Hearing

09th June 2026

e-Filing Number

09-06-2025

Filing Number

186/2025

Filing Date

09-06-2025

Registration No

100032/2025

Registration Date

10-06-2025

Court

Sub Court, Kottarakkara

Judge

1-Sub Judge,Kottarakara

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Section 26orderVIIRuleI
IA/2/2025 Classification : Petition Section Thomas ChackoThajudeen
IA/3/2025 Classification : Petition Section Thomas ChackoThajudeen

Petitioner(s)

Thajudeen

Adv. Sethu Lekshmi C

Respondent(s)

Thomas Chacko Advocate - VARGHESE P MATHEW

Annamma Thomas

Adv. VARGHESE P MATHEW

Soya Manoj Mathew

Adv. VARGHESE P MATHEW

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Sub Judge,Kottarakara

30-05-2026

for evidence.

23-05-2026

Issues

06-04-2026

Issues

13-03-2026

Report on mediation

26-02-2026

Report on mediation

Interim Orders

11-08-2025
Order

Case Summary: Thajudeen v. Thomas Chacko Advocate & Others (Case 100032/2025) Outcome: The petition for temporary injunction was dismissed. The court found that petitioner Thajudeen failed to establish a prima facie case for restraining respondent No. 3 from executing documents regarding a disputed property. The court determined that Thajudeen had not performed his contractual obligations to purchase the property and bore primary responsibility for the transaction's failure, while respondents demonstrated willingness to execute the sale deed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Thajudeen v. Thomas Chacko Advocate & Others (Case 100032/2025) Outcome: The petition for temporary injunction was dismissed. The court found that petitioner Thajudeen failed to establish a prima facie case for restraining respondent No. 3 from executing documents regarding a disputed property. The court determined that Thajudeen had not performed his contractual obligations to purchase the property and bore primary responsibility for the transaction's failure, while respondents demonstrated willingness to execute the sale deed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Sub Court, Kottarakkara All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case