Varghees K. Mathew vs Abraham George Advocate - Sreenu Raj N, Vishnu Manohar, Vishnu ManoharNithin C Regi,, Vishnu ManoharNithin C Regi,RAHUL KUMAR R, — 300021/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O9 R13. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED on 06th April 2026.
Restor.Ptn - RESTORATION PETITION
CNR: KLPT130001522025
Filing Number
189/2025
Filing Date
11-03-2025
Registration No
300021/2025
Registration Date
11-03-2025
Court
Munsiff Court, Thiruvalla
Judge
1-Munsiff
Decision Date
06th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Varghees K. Mathew
Adv. GEORGE.M.GEORGE
Late Oommen Mathew
Adv. GEORGE.M.GEORGE
Lilly Oommen
Adv. GEORGE.M.GEORGE
Rinu Mathew
Adv. GEORGE.M.GEORGE
Rosin Mammer
Adv. GEORGE.M.GEORGE
Reena Mathai
Adv. GEORGE.M.GEORGE
Respondent(s)
Abraham George Advocate - Sreenu Raj N, Vishnu Manohar, Vishnu ManoharNithin C Regi,, Vishnu ManoharNithin C Regi,RAHUL KUMAR R,
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Munsiff
Disposed
Order/ Judgement
Call on
Call on
Objection
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 01-04-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 31-03-2026 | Call on |
| 28-03-2026 | Call on |
| 12-03-2026 | Objection |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 300021/2025 The Munsiff Court of Thiruvalla allowed a petition to set aside an ex parte decree passed against defendants Varghees K. Mathew and others. The defendants were absent during trial on 03.02.2025 and an ex parte judgment was rendered on 06.12.2025. The court permitted the petition filed on 05.03.2025 (within limitation period) because it was timely, the plaintiff did not object, and the defendants' counsel cited engagement of new counsel requiring case study time as justification. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 300021/2025 The Munsiff Court of Thiruvalla allowed a petition to set aside an ex parte decree passed against defendants Varghees K. Mathew and others. The defendants were absent during trial on 03.02.2025 and an ex parte judgment was rendered on 06.12.2025. The court permitted the petition filed on 05.03.2025 (within limitation period) because it was timely, the plaintiff did not object, and the defendants' counsel cited engagement of new counsel requiring case study time as justification. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts