Jose.N.J vs Joseph Thomas Advocate - Lithin Thomas — 100085/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26,O7,R1to7. Status: Stay Report. Next hearing: 17th June 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLKT150001322023
Next Hearing
17th June 2026
Filing Number
100121/2023
Filing Date
20-05-2023
Registration No
100085/2023
Registration Date
20-05-2023
Court
Munsiff Court, Ettumanoor
Judge
1-MUNSIFF, ETTUMANOOR
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Jose.N.J
Adv. K.Vinodkumar
Respondent(s)
Joseph Thomas Advocate - Lithin Thomas
George Joseph
Adv. Lithin Thomas,LITHIN
Thankamma George @ Thankamma
Adv. Lithin Thomas,LITHIN
Hearing History
Judge: 1-MUNSIFF, ETTUMANOOR
Stay Report
Verify And Report
Verify And Report
Stayed Call On
For Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-05-2026 | Stay Report |
| 04-04-2026 | Verify And Report |
| 16-03-2026 | Verify And Report |
| 25-02-2026 | Stayed Call On |
| 18-02-2026 | For Hearing |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 100085/2023 Outcome: The application to exclude the counter-claim was allowed; the counter-claim is excluded. Key Issue: Plaintiff Jose N.J sought to exclude a counter-claim filed by defendants Joseph Thomas, George Joseph, and Thankamma George in a property dispute case involving trespass and injunction claims. Court's Reasoning: The Munsiff Court held that the counter-claim raises issues requiring resolution in a separate suit because necessary parties (prior property owners and defendants' siblings) cannot be impleaded. The counter-claim involves boundary fixation disputes unrelated to the plaintiff's title, requiring independent consideration that cannot be properly decided within this suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 100085/2023 Outcome: The application to exclude the counter-claim was allowed; the counter-claim is excluded. Key Issue: Plaintiff Jose N.J sought to exclude a counter-claim filed by defendants Joseph Thomas, George Joseph, and Thankamma George in a property dispute case involving trespass and injunction claims. Court's Reasoning: The Munsiff Court held that the counter-claim raises issues requiring resolution in a separate suit because necessary parties (prior property owners and defendants' siblings) cannot be impleaded. The counter-claim involves boundary fixation disputes unrelated to the plaintiff's title, requiring independent consideration that cannot be properly decided within this suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts