DR. E BANNERJI vs SATHIBHASURA Advocate - Muhammed Thaha K — 82/2026
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Status: Written Statement. Next hearing: 30th June 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLKM280001032026
Filing Number
81/2026
Filing Date
23-Feb-2026
Registration No
82/2026
Registration Date
23-Feb-2026
Court
Munsiff Court ,Karunagappally
Judge
1-Munsiff
Last updated 21-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.DR. E BANNERJI
Adv. VINAYAKUMAR K
Respondent(s)
-
1.SATHIBHASURA Advocate - Muhammed Thaha K
-
2.KRISHNANUNNY
Adv. Muhammed Thaha K
-
3.ANU
Adv. Muhammed Thaha K
Case History
-
30-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
07-Apr-2026
OrderView PDF
Case Summary: 82/2026 - Dr. E Banerji v. Sathibhasura & Others The Court of Munsiff, Karunagappally granted a temporary injunction in favor of Dr. E Banerji on April 7, 2026. Dr. Banerji sought to restrain neighbors from obstructing his use of a 2.80-meter-wide pathway (Plaint B schedule) necessary to access his property. The court found a prima facie case for the petitioner, noting the Advocate Commissioner's report confirmed the pathway's existence and that it was the only means of access to his property. The court restrained respondents from obstructing the pathway for vehicular and pedestrian traffic, while explicitly prohibiting Dr. Banerji from encroaching on the respondents' 4-acre property. No costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
07-Apr-2026
Written Statement
Munsiff
-
06-Apr-2026
Order/ Judgement
Munsiff
-
31-Mar-2026
Call on
Munsiff
-
25-Mar-2026
Orders in IA
Munsiff
-
23-Mar-2026
Verify and report
Munsiff
-
18-Mar-2026
Objection
Munsiff
-
24-Feb-2026
Return of summons
Munsiff
-
23-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
23-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 82/2026
Case Summary: 82/2026 - Dr. E Banerji v. Sathibhasura & Others The Court of Munsiff, Karunagappally granted a temporary injunction in favor of Dr. E Banerji on April 7, 2026. Dr. Banerji sought to restrain neighbors from obstructing his use of a 2.80-meter-wide pathway (Plaint B schedule) necessary to access his property. The court found a prima facie case for the petitioner, noting the Advocate Commissioner's report confirmed the pathway's existence and that it was the only means of access to his property. The court restrained respondents from obstructing the pathway for vehicular and pedestrian traffic, while explicitly prohibiting Dr. Banerji from encroaching on the respondents' 4-acre property. No costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts