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.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLML200006862019
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
686/2019
Filing Date
26-07-2019
Registration No
300200/2019
Registration Date
26-07-2019
Court
Munsiff Court, Parappanagadi
Judge
4-Munsiff,Parappanangadi
Decision Date
25th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--PRELIMINARY DECREE PASSED.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sreemathi K.
Adv. Anoop Narayanan, Anoop Narayanan, ANOOP NARAYANAN P G
Malukuty @ Syamala
Adv. Anoop Narayanan,PRIYADARSHINI T M ANOOP NARAYANAN P G
Sarala M.
Adv. Anoop Narayanan,PRIYADARSHINI T M ANOOP NARAYANAN P G
Respondent(s)
Velayudhan C
Hearing History
Judge: 4-Munsiff,Parappanangadi
Disposed
Order/ Judgement
FOR HEARING
FOR HEARING
FOR HEARING
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 25-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 13-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement | |
| 09-03-2026 | FOR HEARING | |
| 24-02-2026 | FOR HEARING | |
| 12-02-2026 | FOR HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Judgement
Interim Orders
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts