Sreemathi K. vs Velayudhan C — 300200/2019

Case under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section Section26,Order7,Rule1. Disposed: Contested--PRELIMINARY DECREE PASSED. on 25th March 2026.

Case disposed

OS - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KLML200006862019

Filing Number

686/2019

Filing Date

26-Jul-2019

Registration No

300200/2019

Registration Date

26-Jul-2019

Court

Munsiff Court, Parappanagadi

Judge

4-Munsiff,Parappanangadi

Decision Date

25-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--PRELIMINARY DECREE PASSED.

Last updated 19-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section Section26,Order7,Rule1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sreemathi K.

    Adv. Anoop Narayanan, Anoop Narayanan, ANOOP NARAYANAN P G

  2. 2.Malukuty @ Syamala

    Adv. Anoop Narayanan,PRIYADARSHINI T M ANOOP NARAYANAN P G

  3. 3.Sarala M.

    Adv. Anoop Narayanan,PRIYADARSHINI T M ANOOP NARAYANAN P G

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Velayudhan C

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 25-Mar-2026

    Judgement

  3. 25-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Order/ Judgement

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  5. 09-Mar-2026

    For Hearing

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  6. 24-Feb-2026

    For Hearing

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  7. 12-Feb-2026

    For Hearing

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  8. 03-Feb-2026

    For Hearing

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  9. 27-Jan-2026

    Listed to

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  10. 21-Jan-2026

    For Hearing

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  11. 17-Jan-2026

    for evidence

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  12. 15-Jan-2026

    For evidence

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  13. 08-Jan-2026

    Final OrderView PDF

    Summary: The Munsiff Court of Parappanangadi allowed the plaintiffs' interlocutory application to recall their witness (PW1) in a partition suit. The court held that since the defendant had amended the written statement raising a fundamental issue about whether the property is self-acquired or coparcenary property, the plaintiffs should be permitted to adduce evidence on this core matter despite their earlier oversight. The court emphasized that recalling the witness serves the interests of complete justice rather than filling gaps, and the defendant retains the right to cross-examine, thus warranting the petition's allowance with no order as to costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  14. 08-Jan-2026

    For further evidence

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  15. 07-Jan-2026

    Order/ Judgement

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  16. 06-Jan-2026

    For further evidence

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  17. 03-Jan-2026

    For evidence

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  18. 19-Dec-2025

    For evidence

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  19. 15-Dec-2025

    For counter and hearing

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  20. 12-Dec-2025

    For evidence

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  21. 26-Nov-2025

    Listed to

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  22. 24-Nov-2025

    call on

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  23. 21-Nov-2025

    call on

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  24. 17-Nov-2025

    For evidence

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  25. 13-Nov-2025

    For evidence

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  26. 06-Nov-2025

    For evidence

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  27. 31-Oct-2025

    Await report

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  28. 28-Oct-2025

    call on

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  29. 21-Oct-2025

    Await report

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  30. 15-Oct-2025

    For evidence

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  31. 23-Aug-2025

    Listed to

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  32. 30-Jul-2025

    call on

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  33. 30-Jul-2025

    Restored

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  34. 30-Jul-2025

    For Steps

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  35. 29-Nov-2024

    JudgementView PDF

  36. 29-Nov-2024

    Disposed

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  37. 26-Sep-2024

    For Steps

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  38. 10-Sep-2024

    For Steps

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  39. 17-Jul-2024

    For Steps

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  40. 21-May-2024

    For Steps

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  41. 17-Feb-2024

    No further time

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  42. 12-Dec-2023

    For Steps

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  43. 21-Nov-2023

    For Steps

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  44. 14-Sep-2023

    For Steps

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  45. 26-Jun-2023

    For Steps

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  46. 25-Mar-2023

    For Steps

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  47. 06-Jan-2023

    For Steps

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  48. 15-Dec-2022

    For Steps

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  49. 19-Oct-2022

    For Hearing

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  50. 27-Jul-2022

    For Steps

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  51. 14-Jun-2022

    Issues

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  52. 11-Mar-2022

    For Steps

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  53. 28-Jan-2022

    For Steps

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  54. 27-Nov-2021

    For Steps

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  55. 27-Sep-2021

    Report on mediation

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  56. 14-Jul-2021

    Report on mediation

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  57. 08-Mar-2021

    Report on mediation

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  58. 03-Nov-2020

    For Hearing

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  59. 27-Jun-2020

    For Hearing

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  60. 28-Jan-2020

    For Hearing

    Munsiff,Parappanangadi

  61. 29-Aug-2019

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  62. 26-Jul-2019

    Case filed

    Registration No. 300200/2019

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Munsiff Court of Parappanangadi allowed the plaintiffs' interlocutory application to recall their witness (PW1) in a partition suit. The court held that since the defendant had amended the written statement raising a fundamental issue about whether the property is self-acquired or coparcenary property, the plaintiffs should be permitted to adduce evidence on this core matter despite their earlier oversight. The court emphasized that recalling the witness serves the interests of complete justice rather than filling gaps, and the defendant retains the right to cross-examine, thus warranting the petition's allowance with no order as to costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case