Shubha vs Jonson Advocate - APPUKUTTAN K K — 309/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section sec 26. Status: Written Statement. Next hearing: 12th August 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLPK230006012025
Next Hearing
12th August 2026
Filing Number
584/2025
Filing Date
09-09-2025
Registration No
309/2025
Registration Date
09-09-2025
Court
Munsiff Court , Alathur
Judge
1-Munsiff
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shubha
Adv. SHIBU SHAMSUDEEN
Respondent(s)
Jonson Advocate - APPUKUTTAN K K
Pramod @ Subramanian
Secretory, Vadakkanchery Grama Panchayath
Adv. A K Balasubramanian
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Munsiff
Written Statement
Written Statement
Objection to CR
Orders in IA
Orders in IA
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Written Statement |
| 15-11-2025 | Written Statement |
| 04-11-2025 | Objection to CR |
| 03-11-2025 | Orders in IA |
| 01-11-2025 | Orders in IA |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Shubha v. Johnson (OS 309/2025) Outcome: Interlocutory Application dismissed without costs. Shubha sought a permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain Johnson from continuing illegal construction of a three-storied building on his adjacent property in Vadakkencherry. The Munsiff court rejected her request, finding she failed to establish a prima facie case: the commissioner's report showed she owned no property directly adjoining the disputed construction site, making the alleged harm indirect. The court also found the vague commissioner report lacked crucial details about measurements and distance violations. Additionally, construction was already substantially completed, and balance of convenience favored refusing injunction to avoid considerable loss to the respondent. The petitioner was directed to pursue remedies under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act instead. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Shubha v. Johnson (OS 309/2025) Outcome: Interlocutory Application dismissed without costs. Shubha sought a permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain Johnson from continuing illegal construction of a three-storied building on his adjacent property in Vadakkencherry. The Munsiff court rejected her request, finding she failed to establish a prima facie case: the commissioner's report showed she owned no property directly adjoining the disputed construction site, making the alleged harm indirect. The court also found the vague commissioner report lacked crucial details about measurements and distance violations. Additionally, construction was already substantially completed, and balance of convenience favored refusing injunction to avoid considerable loss to the respondent. The petitioner was directed to pursue remedies under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act instead. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts