Biju P S vs BAIJU B Advocate - GEORGE KURIAN — 9/2026
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Status: Appearance of Parties. Next hearing: 12th June 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLKT170000142026
Next Hearing
12th June 2026
Filing Number
9/2026
Filing Date
12-01-2026
Registration No
9/2026
Registration Date
13-01-2026
Court
Munsiff Court Kanjirappally
Judge
1-MUNSIFF, KANJIRAPPALLY
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Biju P S
Adv. Ninan K.S
Respondent(s)
BAIJU B Advocate - GEORGE KURIAN
SOUMYAMOL K D
Adv. GEORGE KURIAN
SHARAJ K K
Adv. Premchand,Dilsha A A RAGESH T B YEDHU KRISHNAN V J Saneeta ROBIN Premchand
Hearing History
Judge: 1-MUNSIFF, KANJIRAPPALLY
Appearance of Parties
Call On
Call On
Call On
For Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-04-2026 | Appearance of Parties |
| 06-04-2026 | Call On |
| 04-04-2026 | Call On |
| 01-04-2026 | Call On |
| 23-03-2026 | For Hearing |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Biju P S v. Baiju B & Others (IA 1/2026 in O.S 9/2026) Outcome: The petition for temporary prohibitory injunction was dismissed. The court vacated the earlier injunction granted on 13.01.2026, finding the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case against the defendants. Key Facts: Petitioner claimed entitlement to Rs. 7,70,000 from defendants based on a 2024 property exchange agreement. However, petitioner himself witnessed subsequent agreements (2024-2025) transferring the property to the third defendant, and did not raise liability claims when the sale deed was executed. The third defendant now holds legal title, tax receipts, possession certificate, and building permit for the property. Court's Finding: The court found no documentary evidence supporting petitioner's claimed liability from defendants, and ruled that granting an injunction would cause irreparable injury to the third defendant's established title and ongoing construction activities. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Biju P S v. Baiju B & Others (IA 1/2026 in O.S 9/2026) Outcome: The petition for temporary prohibitory injunction was dismissed. The court vacated the earlier injunction granted on 13.01.2026, finding the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case against the defendants. Key Facts: Petitioner claimed entitlement to Rs. 7,70,000 from defendants based on a 2024 property exchange agreement. However, petitioner himself witnessed subsequent agreements (2024-2025) transferring the property to the third defendant, and did not raise liability claims when the sale deed was executed. The third defendant now holds legal title, tax receipts, possession certificate, and building permit for the property. Court's Finding: The court found no documentary evidence supporting petitioner's claimed liability from defendants, and ruled that granting an injunction would cause irreparable injury to the third defendant's established title and ongoing construction activities. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts