Sreeja Kunhipurayil vs Ashokan Puthiya Purayil — 91/2020

Case under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section U/s26, O 7, R 1. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 08th April 2026.

OS - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KLKN110002162020

Case disposed

Filing Number

2817/2020

Filing Date

16-03-2020

Registration No

91/2020

Registration Date

16-03-2020

Court

Principal Munsiffs Court, Kannur

Judge

3-Prl. Munsiff/jfcm4, Kannur

Decision Date

08th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Acts & Sections

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section U/s26, O 7, R 1
IA/1/2026 Classification : Adjournment Application Section Ashokan Puthiya PurayilSreeja Kunhipurayil
IA/2/2026 Classification : Application To Receive Documents Section Ashokan Puthiya PurayilSreeja Kunhipurayil

Petitioner(s)

Sreeja Kunhipurayil

Adv. Rathnakaran CK

Respondent(s)

Ashokan Puthiya Purayil

Mohanan K.P

Adv. SUSMITHA K C,KESAVAN A V

Sarala.P.P

Adv. SUSMITHA K C,KESAVAN A V

Hearing History

Judge: 3-Prl. Munsiff/jfcm4, Kannur

08-04-2026

Disposed

06-04-2026

Order/ Judgement

31-03-2026

Order/Judgement

30-03-2026

Order/ Judgement

26-03-2026

Order/ Judgement

Final Orders / Judgements

08-04-2026
Judgement

Court Decision Summary The Munsiff Court of Kannur dismissed the plaintiff's suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a clearly identifiable southern boundary of her property, as the alleged 3-foot pathway and mud wall cited as boundaries either did not exist or were created after property leveling by the plaintiff herself. Without well-defined physical boundaries separating the properties, the court held that no injunction could be granted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Munsiff Court of Kannur dismissed the plaintiff's suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a clearly identifiable southern boundary of her property, as the alleged 3-foot pathway and mud wall cited as boundaries either did not exist or were created after property leveling by the plaintiff herself. Without well-defined physical boundaries separating the properties, the court held that no injunction could be granted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Principal Munsiffs Court, Kannur All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case