Purushothaman vs Leela Advocate - ABHILASH.V.R — 100161/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Status: Issues. Next hearing: 02nd July 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLKM280001902023
Filing Number
189/2023
Filing Date
23-Mar-2023
Registration No
100161/2023
Registration Date
24-Mar-2023
Court
Munsiff Court ,Karunagappally
Judge
1-Munsiff
Last updated 21-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Purushothaman
Adv. J.MUHAMMED AMEER
Respondent(s)
-
1.Leela Advocate - ABHILASH.V.R
-
2.Retheesh
Adv. ABHILASH.V.R
-
3.Ambili
Adv. ABHILASH.V.R
Case History
-
02-Jul-2026
Next hearingPending
-
18-Mar-2026
Issues
Munsiff
-
20-Dec-2025
Report on mediation
Munsiff
-
27-Oct-2025
Report on mediation
Munsiff
-
18-Aug-2025
Appearance Of Parties
Munsiff
-
16-Jun-2025
For Replication
Munsiff
-
01-Feb-2025
Prays time
Munsiff
-
21-Nov-2024
No sitting notified
Munsiff
-
27-Aug-2024
For Replication
Munsiff
-
03-Jul-2024
For commission report
Munsiff
-
26-Feb-2024
Call on
Munsiff
-
01-Dec-2023
No sitting notified
Munsiff
-
21-Sep-2023
For commission report
Munsiff
-
29-Jun-2023
No sitting notified
Munsiff
-
24-Mar-2023
OrderView PDF
Case 100161/2023 Summary: The Munsiff Court of Karunagappally granted an interim injunction petition filed by Purushothaman and Prameela against Leela, Retheesh, and Ambili on March 24, 2023. The court found a prima facie case with balance of convenience favoring the plaintiffs and restrained defendants from committing mischief, demolishing boundaries, or parking/taking vehicles in the disputed property until further orders. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
24-Mar-2023
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
23-Mar-2023
Case filed
Registration No. 100161/2023
Case 100161/2023 Summary: The Munsiff Court of Karunagappally granted an interim injunction petition filed by Purushothaman and Prameela against Leela, Retheesh, and Ambili on March 24, 2023. The court found a prima facie case with balance of convenience favoring the plaintiffs and restrained defendants from committing mischief, demolishing boundaries, or parking/taking vehicles in the disputed property until further orders. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts