Saneesh.P.K. vs Kannoth Jithesh — 1/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 438. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 19th March 2026.
Crl.RP (Calendar) - CALENDAR REVISION PETITION
CNR: KLKN010001522026
Filing Number
1/2026
Filing Date
09-01-2026
Registration No
1/2026
Registration Date
14-01-2026
Court
District Court and Sessions Court / Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery
Judge
1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
19th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Saneesh.P.K.
Adv. Sunil Kumar T
Respondent(s)
Kannoth Jithesh
State
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Disposed
Order/ Judgement
Order/ Judgement
Order/ Judgement
FOR HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 19-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 18-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 16-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 09-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 27-02-2026 | FOR HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Saneesh.P.K. v. Kannoth Jithesh (Criminal Revision Petition 1/2026) The Sessions Court at Thalassery allowed Saneesh's revision petition and set aside the lower court's order denying him permission to reopen evidence in a cheque bounce case (Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act). Saneesh, the complainant, had claimed he lent money to Kannoth Jithesh using a ₹2,50,000 bank loan, but wanted to adduce further evidence that the loan was actually taken in his mother's name—contradicting his earlier testimony. The court held that parties deserve sufficient opportunity to present evidence for fair trials, and the proposed evidence was germane to the case, though acceptance remained discretionary for the trial court. The petition was allowed conditionally, requiring Saneesh to pay ₹5,000 to the respondent and ₹3,000 witness fees. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Saneesh.P.K. v. Kannoth Jithesh (Criminal Revision Petition 1/2026) The Sessions Court at Thalassery allowed Saneesh's revision petition and set aside the lower court's order denying him permission to reopen evidence in a cheque bounce case (Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act). Saneesh, the complainant, had claimed he lent money to Kannoth Jithesh using a ₹2,50,000 bank loan, but wanted to adduce further evidence that the loan was actually taken in his mother's name—contradicting his earlier testimony. The court held that parties deserve sufficient opportunity to present evidence for fair trials, and the proposed evidence was germane to the case, though acceptance remained discretionary for the trial court. The petition was allowed conditionally, requiring Saneesh to pay ₹5,000 to the respondent and ₹3,000 witness fees. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts