P.B Pushparajan vs P.B Chandra Babu Advocate - Sarathchandran Nair C.P. — 100259/2011

Case under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 26. Status: Call on. Next hearing: 10th June 2026.

OS - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KLKM200006132011

Call on

Next Hearing

10th June 2026

Filing Number

100259/2011

Filing Date

29-10-2011

Registration No

100259/2011

Registration Date

29-10-2011

Court

Sub Court, Kottarakkara

Judge

1-Sub Judge,Kottarakara

Acts & Sections

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 26
IA/12/2025 Classification : Sanction Petition Section P.B Chandra Babu
IA/13/2025 Classification : Petition Section P.B PushparajanP.B Chandra Babu

Petitioner(s)

P.B Pushparajan

Adv. Sunil Kumar R.

P.B.Sivarajan

Adv. Sunil Kumar R.

P.B.Suresh

Adv. Sunil Kumar R.

P.B.chandrakumar

Adv. Reghukumaran Nair.G

Respondent(s)

P.B Chandra Babu Advocate - Sarathchandran Nair C.P.

P.B.Padma

Adv. Ahammad.P.A

P.B.Venu

Adv. Anitha.G

P.B.Jeevakumar

Adv. Lesley Joseph

Additional D5 Baby Rani

Additional D6 Alli Rani

Additional D7 Mythri Rani

Additional D8 Sheeja Sivarajan

Additional D9 Silpa Sivarajan

Additional D10 Swetha sivarajan

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Sub Judge,Kottarakara

02-06-2026

Call on

29-05-2026

Call on

20-05-2026

Call with IA

08-04-2026

Call with IA

13-03-2026

Call with IA

Interim Orders

05-12-2024
Order

Case Summary: OS No. 259/2011, IA No. 7/2024 Outcome: Petition allowed in part. The court permitted the petitioner to restore a mobile phone to working condition with government technical expert assistance to access recorded voice evidence relevant to a family settlement dispute, without damaging its contents. The petitioner must bear expert costs; no costs awarded to either party. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: OS No. 259/2011, IA No. 7/2024 Outcome: Petition allowed in part. The court permitted the petitioner to restore a mobile phone to working condition with government technical expert assistance to access recorded voice evidence relevant to a family settlement dispute, without damaging its contents. The petitioner must bear expert costs; no costs awarded to either party. 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