Kottarathil Sreenivasan vs Kunnathu Mohemmedkutty — 300127/2020
Case under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section Section 26, Order 7, Rule 1. Status: For commission report. Next hearing: 01st June 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLML230002252020
Next Hearing
01st June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
238/2020
Filing Date
24-08-2020
Registration No
300127/2020
Registration Date
24-08-2020
Court
Munsiff Court, Ponnani
Judge
1-Munsiff-Magistrate
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Kottarathil Sreenivasan
Adv. Basheer PP
Respondent(s)
Kunnathu Mohemmedkutty
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Munsiff-Magistrate
For commission report
Order/ Judgement
Orders in IA
Call with IA
Call with IA
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | For commission report | |
| 19-02-2026 | Order/ Judgement | |
| 19-01-2026 | Orders in IA | |
| 20-12-2025 | Call with IA | |
| 12-11-2025 | Call with IA |
Interim Orders
Summary: The Munsiff-Magistrate Court of Ponnani allowed Interlocutory Application No. 10/2025 and restored I.A. No. 4/2024, which had been dismissed for default on 21.10.2024. The defendant sought restoration arguing his counsel's failure to represent him was not willful negligence, and restoring the application was essential to challenge the Advocate Commissioner's report in the underlying property dispute suit. The court, prioritizing merit-based litigation despite noting the defendant's pattern of non-appearance, granted the restoration on terms: the defendant must pay ₹5,000 as cost to the plaintiff within one week and diligently prosecute I.A. No. 4/2024. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Munsiff-Magistrate Court of Ponnani allowed Interlocutory Application No. 10/2025 and restored I.A. No. 4/2024, which had been dismissed for default on 21.10.2024. The defendant sought restoration arguing his counsel's failure to represent him was not willful negligence, and restoring the application was essential to challenge the Advocate Commissioner's report in the underlying property dispute suit. The court, prioritizing merit-based litigation despite noting the defendant's pattern of non-appearance, granted the restoration on terms: the defendant must pay ₹5,000 as cost to the plaintiff within one week and diligently prosecute I.A. No. 4/2024. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts