M.VIswanathan vs Pushpakumari — 300408/2014
Case under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section U/s26OrderVIIRule1. Status: Payment of cost. Next hearing: 09th July 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLPT090004362014
Next Hearing
09th July 2026
Filing Number
300408/2014
Filing Date
08-10-2014
Registration No
300408/2014
Registration Date
08-10-2014
Court
Munsiff Court , Adoor
Judge
1-Munsiff Magistrate
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
M.VIswanathan
Adv. M.Vijesh Kumar
Valsala
Thankamni
Adv. M.Vijeshkumar
Respondent(s)
Pushpakumari
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Munsiff Magistrate
Payment of cost
Payment of cost
Orders in IA
Orders in IA
Orders in IA
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 26-05-2026 | Payment of cost |
| 18-05-2026 | Payment of cost |
| 30-03-2026 | Orders in IA |
| 24-03-2026 | Orders in IA |
| 12-03-2026 | Orders in IA |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: O.S. No. 408/2014 Outcome: Both petitions allowed. The court condoned a 410-day delay and set aside the suit dismissal order dated 15.11.2024, restoring the suit for adjudication on merits. The restoration is conditional on the plaintiffs paying ₹3,000 in costs to the defendant within 5 days. Key Facts: The original suit (filed 2014) sought permanent prohibitory injunction regarding property access rights and a pathway. After dismissal for default, plaintiffs cited health reasons—first plaintiff's prostate treatment, second plaintiff's caregiving duties, and third plaintiff's advanced age—to justify the 410-day delay in filing restoration applications. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: O.S. No. 408/2014 Outcome: Both petitions allowed. The court condoned a 410-day delay and set aside the suit dismissal order dated 15.11.2024, restoring the suit for adjudication on merits. The restoration is conditional on the plaintiffs paying ₹3,000 in costs to the defendant within 5 days. Key Facts: The original suit (filed 2014) sought permanent prohibitory injunction regarding property access rights and a pathway. After dismissal for default, plaintiffs cited health reasons—first plaintiff's prostate treatment, second plaintiff's caregiving duties, and third plaintiff's advanced age—to justify the 410-day delay in filing restoration applications. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts