Arun. M.P vs Parameswaran Advocate - BINDU M V — 311/2017
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Status: Pre trial steps. Next hearing: 06th June 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLML130007982017
Next Hearing
06th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
875/2017
Filing Date
31-10-2017
Registration No
311/2017
Registration Date
31-10-2017
Court
Munsiff Court, Tirur / Rent Control Court
Judge
1-Munsiff Magistrate
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Arun. M.P
Adv. V.Chandrashekaran and K.Vipin
Respondent(s)
Parameswaran Advocate - BINDU M V
Subadra
Kalyani
Sarada
Velayudhan
Bhaskaran
Shivadasan
Jaya
Manoj
Mahesh
Manjula
Indira
Arjunan
Satheesan
Adv. BINDU M V
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Munsiff Magistrate
Pre trial steps
Pre trial steps
Issues
Issues
No sitting notified
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-04-2026 | Pre trial steps | |
| 09-03-2026 | Pre trial steps | |
| 02-02-2026 | Issues | |
| 08-01-2026 | Issues | |
| 11-12-2025 | No sitting notified |
Interim Orders
Summary In a property partition suit (OS 311/2017), the Munsiff Court of Tirur allowed the plaintiff's application to implead a necessary party (Satheesan as defendant No. 14) but partly rejected his application to amend the plaint by adding allegations that disputed partition deeds were forged and the executor was mentally unsound since 2014. The court found the proposed amendment barred by limitation law and filed too late (6 years after the defendants' written statement), noting it sought to challenge registered documents executed 8-9 years prior. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary In a property partition suit (OS 311/2017), the Munsiff Court of Tirur allowed the plaintiff's application to implead a necessary party (Satheesan as defendant No. 14) but partly rejected his application to amend the plaint by adding allegations that disputed partition deeds were forged and the executor was mentally unsound since 2014. The court found the proposed amendment barred by limitation law and filed too late (6 years after the defendants' written statement), noting it sought to challenge registered documents executed 8-9 years prior. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts