Madhusoodanan vs Pattayil Vallattayil Paramanandan Advocate - Ajay Kumar P — 300210/2017
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 7(1). Status: call on. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLML200004182017
Next Hearing
15th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
417/2017
Filing Date
25-08-2017
Registration No
300210/2017
Registration Date
25-08-2017
Court
Munsiff Court, Parappanagadi
Judge
4-Munsiff,Parappanangadi
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Madhusoodanan
Adv. T.Ramankutty Menon
Reeja bai
Adv. T.Ramankutty Menon
Respondent(s)
Pattayil Vallattayil Paramanandan Advocate - Ajay Kumar P
Praseetha
Adv. Ajaykumar.P
Chinnammu
Adv. Ajay Kumar P
Hearing History
Judge: 4-Munsiff,Parappanangadi
call on
call on
call on
call on
Stayed Call on
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | call on | |
| 28-01-2026 | call on | |
| 04-12-2025 | call on | |
| 28-10-2025 | call on | |
| 23-08-2025 | Stayed Call on |
Interim Orders
Summary: The Munsiff's Court of Parappanangadi dismissed three interlocutory applications (IA 11/2024, 12/2024, and 13/2024) filed by plaintiffs in Original Suit No. 210 of 2017 for recovery of possession. The court rejected petitions seeking to reopen plaintiff evidence, summon the first defendant, and cross-examine him, holding that plaintiffs cannot compel opposing parties to testify as a matter of right and no compelling reason was established to warrant such examination. The court emphasized that in possession suits based on title, the burden lies on plaintiffs to prove their case independently, not on defendants' weakness. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Munsiff's Court of Parappanangadi dismissed three interlocutory applications (IA 11/2024, 12/2024, and 13/2024) filed by plaintiffs in Original Suit No. 210 of 2017 for recovery of possession. The court rejected petitions seeking to reopen plaintiff evidence, summon the first defendant, and cross-examine him, holding that plaintiffs cannot compel opposing parties to testify as a matter of right and no compelling reason was established to warrant such examination. The court emphasized that in possession suits based on title, the burden lies on plaintiffs to prove their case independently, not on defendants' weakness. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts