Nebeesa vs Abdu Advocate - Jison P Jose — 58/2017
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26,Order7,Rule1. Status: Listed to. Next hearing: 02nd June 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLML230001262017
Next Hearing
02nd June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
58/2017
Filing Date
04-04-2017
Registration No
58/2017
Registration Date
04-04-2017
Court
Munsiff Court, Ponnani
Judge
1-Munsiff-Magistrate
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Nebeesa
Adv. P.N.Sujeer
Moossa
Adv. Sujeer P N
Respondent(s)
Abdu Advocate - Jison P Jose
Manikandan
Adv. Jison P Jose
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Munsiff-Magistrate
Listed to
For commission report
for evidence
No sitting notified
for evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Listed to | |
| 23-02-2026 | For commission report | |
| 03-02-2026 | for evidence | |
| 20-01-2026 | No sitting notified | |
| 08-12-2025 | for evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary: The Munsiff-Magistrate Court of Ponnani dismissed the interlocutory application filed by the 1st defendant (Abdu) seeking to set aside the advocate commissioner's report and plan. The petitioner had challenged the commission report for allegedly failing to document a concrete way on the western side of the property and other details. The court held that the respondents' claim of easement rights by prescription over the plaint B schedule property is not affected by the existence of any alternative access route, and the respondents bear the burden of proving their rights through adequate evidence at trial. The petition was dismissed as the court found no merit in remitting the commission report. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Munsiff-Magistrate Court of Ponnani dismissed the interlocutory application filed by the 1st defendant (Abdu) seeking to set aside the advocate commissioner's report and plan. The petitioner had challenged the commission report for allegedly failing to document a concrete way on the western side of the property and other details. The court held that the respondents' claim of easement rights by prescription over the plaint B schedule property is not affected by the existence of any alternative access route, and the respondents bear the burden of proving their rights through adequate evidence at trial. The petition was dismissed as the court found no merit in remitting the commission report. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts