Anandhan vs Gireesh Advocate - MURALEEDHARAN P K — 56/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Section 104 and Order XLIII Rule 1(r). Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 31st March 2026.
CMA - CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL
CNR: KLKT010036352025
Filing Number
636/2025
Filing Date
21-10-2025
Registration No
56/2025
Registration Date
22-10-2025
Court
Principal District & Sessions Court / Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kottayam
Judge
2-Addl. District and Sessions Judge - I, Kottayam
Decision Date
31st March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Anandhan
Adv. SAJAN VARGHESE A
Kunjumani
Adv. SAJAN VARGHESE A
Arun
Adv. SAJAN VARGHESE A
Ranesh
Adv. SAJAN VARGHESE A
Sudheesh @ Vavachi
Adv. SAJAN VARGHESE A
Nithin
Adv. SAJAN VARGHESE A
Binoy
Adv. SAJAN VARGHESE A
Amal
Adv. SAJAN VARGHESE A
Abhilash
Adv. SAJAN VARGHESE A
Respondent(s)
Gireesh Advocate - MURALEEDHARAN P K
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Addl. District and Sessions Judge - I, Kottayam
Disposed
For Further Hearing
For Further Hearing
For Further Hearing
For Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 31-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 26-03-2026 | For Further Hearing |
| 16-03-2026 | For Further Hearing |
| 07-03-2026 | For Further Hearing |
| 23-02-2026 | For Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Case 56/2025 The Additional District Judge dismissed civil appeals by defendants (Anandhan, Kunjumani, Arun and six others) challenging a temporary injunction order that restrained them from widening a 3-foot pathway on plaintiff Gireesh's property. The court found that defendants failed to produce credible documentary evidence—such as a signed surrender form or bilateral agreement—to establish voluntary land surrender to the Panchayat as required under the Panchayat Raj Act, and the commissioner's report confirmed the pathway was newly formed, rejecting their claim of a public road vested in the Panchayat. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Case 56/2025 The Additional District Judge dismissed civil appeals by defendants (Anandhan, Kunjumani, Arun and six others) challenging a temporary injunction order that restrained them from widening a 3-foot pathway on plaintiff Gireesh's property. The court found that defendants failed to produce credible documentary evidence—such as a signed surrender form or bilateral agreement—to establish voluntary land surrender to the Panchayat as required under the Panchayat Raj Act, and the commissioner's report confirmed the pathway was newly formed, rejecting their claim of a public road vested in the Panchayat. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts