Muhammed Shakir T vs Mashhood K and others Advocate - Sanoop E — 215/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O 7 R 1. Status: Order/ Judgement. Next hearing: 24th June 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLKN110004192023
Next Hearing
24th June 2026
Filing Number
458/2023
Filing Date
01-06-2023
Registration No
215/2023
Registration Date
01-06-2023
Court
Principal Munsiffs Court, Kannur
Judge
3-Prl. Munsiff/jfcm4, Kannur
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Muhammed Shakir T
Adv. Naushad K
Respondent(s)
Mashhood K and others Advocate - Sanoop E
Sajid Thayakath
Shuhaibath T
Adv. MANUEL P J
Shahina T
Adv. Sanoop E
Shanib Thayakath
Adv. Sanoop E
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Prl. Munsiff/jfcm4, Kannur
Order/ Judgement
FOR HEARING
For Defendent Evidence
Orders in IA
For hearing on IA
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 03-06-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 25-05-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 22-05-2026 | For Defendent Evidence |
| 21-05-2026 | Orders in IA |
| 20-05-2026 | For hearing on IA |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: OS.215/2023 Outcome: Application dismissed with no order as to costs. In this property partition suit, Defendant No.3 (Shuhaibath T.) filed an application to recall the plaintiff's testimony (PW1) for additional cross-examination, claiming her previous counsel had inadequately examined the witness due to poor communication. The court rejected this request, holding that a party's change of counsel is not valid grounds to reopen evidence. The court noted the application was filed two months after the original examination and would only delay proceedings, potentially prejudicing the plaintiff. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: OS.215/2023 Outcome: Application dismissed with no order as to costs. In this property partition suit, Defendant No.3 (Shuhaibath T.) filed an application to recall the plaintiff's testimony (PW1) for additional cross-examination, claiming her previous counsel had inadequately examined the witness due to poor communication. The court rejected this request, holding that a party's change of counsel is not valid grounds to reopen evidence. The court noted the application was filed two months after the original examination and would only delay proceedings, potentially prejudicing the plaintiff. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts