Cicily vs Thankappan — 300466/2013
Case under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section Section26,order7,Rule1. Status: Defence Evidence. Next hearing: 22nd May 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLPT130004322013
Next Hearing
22nd May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
300466/2013
Filing Date
03-10-2013
Registration No
300466/2013
Registration Date
03-10-2013
Court
Munsiff Court, Thiruvalla
Judge
1-Munsiff
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Cicily
Adv. K G ratheesh Kumar
Respondent(s)
Thankappan
Thankamma Thankappen
Sumesh V t
Suma Thankappen
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Munsiff
Defence Evidence
Defence Evidence
Defence Evidence
Defence Evidence
With connected case
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 28-03-2026 | Defence Evidence | |
| 23-03-2026 | Defence Evidence | |
| 11-03-2026 | Defence Evidence | |
| 05-03-2026 | Defence Evidence | |
| 24-02-2026 | With connected case |
Interim Orders
Summary The petition filed by Suma Thankappan (4th defendant) to set aside the Advocate Commissioner's report and survey plan in a boundary fixation suit has been allowed. The court found the commissioner's report unsatisfactory, noting the property of the petitioner was measured as 3.65 acres instead of the actual 2.20 acres and was done without reviewing the petitioner's title deed. The commission report and survey plan have been remitted back to the Advocate Commissioner for re-measurement based on title deeds and possession records, with both parties directed to deposit required fees and furnish relevant documents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The petition filed by Suma Thankappan (4th defendant) to set aside the Advocate Commissioner's report and survey plan in a boundary fixation suit has been allowed. The court found the commissioner's report unsatisfactory, noting the property of the petitioner was measured as 3.65 acres instead of the actual 2.20 acres and was done without reviewing the petitioner's title deed. The commission report and survey plan have been remitted back to the Advocate Commissioner for re-measurement based on title deeds and possession records, with both parties directed to deposit required fees and furnish relevant documents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts