C.V.Balamohan vs Pramod @ Kuttan Advocate - VIPIN. K — 100169/2023

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Status: No sitting notified. Next hearing: 05th August 2026.

No sitting notified Next hearing 05-Aug-2026

OS - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KLKM280002032023

Filing Number

202/2023

Filing Date

28-Mar-2023

Registration No

100169/2023

Registration Date

30-Mar-2023

Court

Munsiff Court ,Karunagappally

Judge

1-Munsiff

Last updated 21-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 26
Ia/11/2025 Classification : Direction Petition Section C.V.BalamohanPramod @ Kuttan
Ia/12/2025 Classification : Direction Petition Section C.V.BalamohanPramod @ Kuttan

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.C.V.Balamohan

    Adv. Sethukrishnan S, Sethukrishnan S

  2. 2.Santha.N

    Adv. SETHU KRISHNAN S

  3. 3.Sachin.R

    Adv. SETHU KRISHNAN S

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Pramod @ Kuttan Advocate - VIPIN. K

  2. 2.Green Channel Resort

  3. 3.Government department

    Adv. SUNIL.P.S

  4. 4.Government department

    Adv. SUNIL.P.S

Case History

  1. 05-Aug-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 02-Jun-2026

    No sitting notified

    Munsiff

  3. 18-Mar-2026

    Report on mediation

    Munsiff

  4. 17-Jan-2026

    For reports

    Munsiff

  5. 15-Nov-2025

    Appearance Of Parties

    Munsiff

  6. 23-Oct-2025

    Verify and report

    Munsiff

  7. 17-Sep-2025

    For Steps

    Munsiff

  8. 28-Jul-2025

    Objection

    Munsiff

  9. 03-Jun-2025

    Verify and report

    Munsiff

  10. 18-Jan-2025

    Objection

    Munsiff

  11. 29-Nov-2024

    Bcf and steps

    Munsiff

  12. 07-Nov-2024

    Written Statement

    Munsiff

  13. 15-Oct-2024

    Written Statement

    Munsiff

  14. 05-Aug-2024

    Call on

    Munsiff

  15. 25-Jun-2024

    Call on

    Munsiff

  16. 29-May-2024

    Written Statement

    Munsiff

  17. 25-Jan-2024

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: 100169/2023 Outcome: Interim injunction petition partially granted. The court ordered the 1st defendant (Pramod @ Kuttan) to maintain status quo on all further construction work in the pathway (Plaint B Schedule) until the suit's adjudication. Key Facts: Plaintiffs sought to restrain defendants from narrowing a public pathway and constructing without proper authorization. The 1st defendant had begun unauthorized construction work (4.5 meters wide) in the pathway since March 2023. The court found the plaintiffs have a credible claim to easement rights through 20+ years of uninterrupted use and noted the Municipality report showed the construction violates rules. However, since construction had already commenced, the court imposed status quo rather than complete restraint. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  18. 25-Jan-2024

    Written Statement

    Munsiff

  19. 18-Jan-2024

    For further hearing

    Munsiff

  20. 11-Jan-2024

    Call on

    Munsiff

  21. 09-Oct-2023

    Written Statement

    Munsiff

  22. 03-Oct-2023

    For Objection and hearing

    Munsiff

  23. 10-Jul-2023

    Call on

    Munsiff

  24. 05-Jul-2023

    For Objection and hearing

    Munsiff

  25. 04-Jul-2023

    For Hearing

    Munsiff

  26. 30-Mar-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  27. 28-Mar-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 100169/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 100169/2023 Outcome: Interim injunction petition partially granted. The court ordered the 1st defendant (Pramod @ Kuttan) to maintain status quo on all further construction work in the pathway (Plaint B Schedule) until the suit's adjudication. Key Facts: Plaintiffs sought to restrain defendants from narrowing a public pathway and constructing without proper authorization. The 1st defendant had begun unauthorized construction work (4.5 meters wide) in the pathway since March 2023. The court found the plaintiffs have a credible claim to easement rights through 20+ years of uninterrupted use and noted the Municipality report showed the construction violates rules. However, since construction had already commenced, the court imposed status quo rather than complete restraint. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case