Baby V C vs Kunjumol Advocate - DEEPTHI G NAIR, K VINOD KUMAR — 100076/2021
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 41. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 10th April 2026.
AS - CIVIL APPEAL
CNR: KLKT010023272021
Filing Number
791/2021
Filing Date
18-Oct-2021
Registration No
100076/2021
Registration Date
18-Oct-2021
Court
Principal District & Sessions Court / Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kottayam
Judge
3-Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II (Spl.) / Addl. MACT-I, Kottayam
Decision Date
10-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Last updated 10-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Baby V C
Adv. JAYAKRISHNAN R
Respondent(s)
-
1.Kunjumol Advocate - DEEPTHI G NAIR, K VINOD KUMAR
-
2.Thomas Joseph
Adv. K VINOD KUMAR,DEEPTHI G NAIR
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
10-Apr-2026
JudgementView PDF
Summary of Case 100076/2021 Decision: The appellate court dismissed Baby V C's appeal and confirmed the trial court's dismissal of the injunction suit. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish that defendants reduced the pathway width and did not approach the court with clean hands, as he overstated the pathway's width as 6 feet when evidence showed it was approximately 5 feet. Key Reasoning: Commissioner reports and the plaintiff's own testimony revealed the disputed pathway had an average width of 5 feet (not 6 feet as claimed), and the boundary walls were not reconstructed in a manner that reduced the pathway's width. The court also rejected the non-joinder of parties argument, finding the suit was maintainable against the two defendants alone. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
10-Apr-2026
Disposed
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II (Spl.) / Addl. MACT-I, Kottayam
-
07-Apr-2026
Order/Judgement
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II (Spl.) / Addl. MACT-I, Kottayam
-
31-Mar-2026
Order/Judgement
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II (Spl.) / Addl. MACT-I, Kottayam
-
26-Mar-2026
Order/Judgement
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II (Spl.) / Addl. MACT-I, Kottayam
-
16-Mar-2026
Order/Judgement
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II (Spl.) / Addl. MACT-I, Kottayam
-
11-Mar-2026
Issue Notice
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II (Spl.) / Addl. MACT-I, Kottayam
-
07-Mar-2026
Order/Judgement
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II (Spl.) / Addl. MACT-I, Kottayam
-
27-Feb-2026
Order/Judgement
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II (Spl.) / Addl. MACT-I, Kottayam
-
26-Feb-2026
Order/Judgement
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II (Spl.) / Addl. MACT-I, Kottayam
-
17-Feb-2026
Order/Judgement
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II (Spl.) / Addl. MACT-I, Kottayam
-
28-Jan-2026
Order/Judgement
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II (Spl.) / Addl. MACT-I, Kottayam
-
22-Jan-2026
For Further Hearing
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II (Spl.) / Addl. MACT-I, Kottayam
-
19-Jan-2026
For Hearing
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II (Spl.) / Addl. MACT-I, Kottayam
-
18-Dec-2025
For Hearing
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II (Spl.) / Addl. MACT-I, Kottayam
-
09-Dec-2025
Adjourned
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II (Spl.) / Addl. MACT-I, Kottayam
-
10-Nov-2025
Appearance of Parties
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II (Spl.) / Addl. MACT-I, Kottayam
-
24-Oct-2025
For Hearing
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II (Spl.) / Addl. MACT-I, Kottayam
-
17-Oct-2025
Call On
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II (Spl.) / Addl. MACT-I, Kottayam
-
09-Oct-2025
For Hearing
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II (Spl.) / Addl. MACT-I, Kottayam
-
20-Sep-2025
For Hearing
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II (Spl.) / Addl. MACT-I, Kottayam
-
11-Sep-2025
For Hearing
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II (Spl.) / Addl. MACT-I, Kottayam
-
12-Aug-2025
For Hearing
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II (Spl.) / Addl. MACT-I, Kottayam
-
14-Jul-2025
For Hearing
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II (Spl.) / Addl. MACT-I, Kottayam
-
07-Jun-2025
For Hearing
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II (Spl.) / Addl. MACT-I, Kottayam
-
27-May-2025
For Hearing
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II (Spl.) / Addl. MACT-I, Kottayam
-
08-Apr-2025
Call On
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II (Spl.) / Addl. MACT-I, Kottayam
-
04-Apr-2025
Adjourned
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II (Spl.) / Addl. MACT-I, Kottayam
-
27-Mar-2025
Referred to Mediator
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II (Spl.) / Addl. MACT-I, Kottayam
-
23-Jan-2025
Call On
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II (Spl.) / Addl. MACT-I, Kottayam
-
21-Nov-2024
Call On
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II (Spl.) / Addl. MACT-I, Kottayam
-
19-Jul-2024
Call On
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II (Spl.) / Addl. MACT-I, Kottayam
-
20-Feb-2024
Appellant Prays
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II (Spl.) / Addl. MACT-I, Kottayam
-
11-Oct-2023
For Hearing
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II (Spl.) / Addl. MACT-I, Kottayam
-
06-Jul-2023
For Hearing
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II (Spl.) / Addl. MACT-I, Kottayam
-
13-Apr-2023
For Hearing
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II (Spl.) / Addl. MACT-I, Kottayam
-
04-Jan-2023
Call On
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II (Spl.) / Addl. MACT-I, Kottayam
-
26-Oct-2022
Call On
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II (Spl.) / Addl. MACT-I, Kottayam
-
17-Aug-2022
Issue Notice
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II (Spl.) / Addl. MACT-I, Kottayam
-
16-Jun-2022
Adjourned
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II (Spl.) / Addl. MACT-I, Kottayam
-
01-Apr-2022
For Steps
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II (Spl.) / Addl. MACT-I, Kottayam
-
10-Feb-2022
Adjourned
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II (Spl.) / Addl. MACT-I, Kottayam
-
02-Dec-2021
For Steps
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II (Spl.) / Addl. MACT-I, Kottayam
-
21-Oct-2021
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
18-Oct-2021
Case filed
Registration No. 100076/2021
Summary of Case 100076/2021 Decision: The appellate court dismissed Baby V C's appeal and confirmed the trial court's dismissal of the injunction suit. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish that defendants reduced the pathway width and did not approach the court with clean hands, as he overstated the pathway's width as 6 feet when evidence showed it was approximately 5 feet. Key Reasoning: Commissioner reports and the plaintiff's own testimony revealed the disputed pathway had an average width of 5 feet (not 6 feet as claimed), and the boundary walls were not reconstructed in a manner that reduced the pathway's width. The court also rejected the non-joinder of parties argument, finding the suit was maintainable against the two defendants alone. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts