Badarudheen vs Noushad — 100107/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Section26OrderVIIRule1. Status: Issues. Next hearing: 16th July 2026.

Issues Next hearing 16-Jul-2026 this date has passed

OS - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KLKM210001462025

e-Filing Number

21-02-2025

Filing Number

100168/2025

Filing Date

21-Feb-2025

Registration No

100107/2025

Registration Date

21-Feb-2025

Court

Munsiff Court, Kottarakkara

Judge

1-Munsiff

Last updated 06-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section Section26OrderVIIRule1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Badarudheen

    Adv. Anilkumar D. (Ayoor)

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Noushad

  2. 2.Ruksana

  3. 3.Sanooja

    Adv. UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR P

Case History

  1. 16-Jul-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 31-Mar-2026

    Issues

    Munsiff

  3. 18-Mar-2026

    For reports

    Munsiff

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Appearance Of Parties

    Munsiff

  5. 16-Dec-2025

    Call on

    Munsiff

  6. 16-Sep-2025

    For Hearing

    Munsiff

  7. 17-Jun-2025

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: 100107/2025 Outcome: Petition dismissed. The Munsiff Court rejected Badarudheen's injunction petition against Ruksana and Sanooja regarding a pathway (D schedule property). The court found that Badarudheen failed to establish a prima facie case because: (1) he did not claim any personal right over the disputed pathway; (2) the owners of properties B and C—whom he claimed to represent as "agent by necessity"—were not made parties to the suit, making it unmaintainable; and (3) evidence showed the defendants purchased land to widen an existing way for their exclusive use, with clear boundary demarcation. The court concluded the defendants have exclusive user rights over the pathway. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  8. 17-Jun-2025

    Written Statement

    Munsiff

  9. 16-Jun-2025

    Orders in IA

    Munsiff

  10. 11-Jun-2025

    Order/ Judgement

    Munsiff

  11. 09-Jun-2025

    Order/ Judgement

    Munsiff

  12. 06-Jun-2025

    Order/ Judgement

    Munsiff

  13. 05-Jun-2025

    Order/ Judgement

    Munsiff

  14. 04-Jun-2025

    Order/ Judgement

    Munsiff

  15. 28-May-2025

    Call with IA

    Munsiff

  16. 24-Feb-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  17. 21-Feb-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 100107/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 100107/2025 Outcome: Petition dismissed. The Munsiff Court rejected Badarudheen's injunction petition against Ruksana and Sanooja regarding a pathway (D schedule property). The court found that Badarudheen failed to establish a prima facie case because: (1) he did not claim any personal right over the disputed pathway; (2) the owners of properties B and C—whom he claimed to represent as "agent by necessity"—were not made parties to the suit, making it unmaintainable; and (3) evidence showed the defendants purchased land to widen an existing way for their exclusive use, with clear boundary demarcation. The court concluded the defendants have exclusive user rights over the pathway. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case