Suma V T vs Cicily Advocate - RAJESH KUMAR C — 300528/2013

Case under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section Section26,order7,Rule1. Status: Defence Evidence. Next hearing: 22nd May 2026.

OS - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KLPT130005312013

Defence Evidence

Next Hearing

22nd May 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

300528/2013

Filing Date

28-10-2013

Registration No

300528/2013

Registration Date

28-10-2013

Court

Munsiff Court, Thiruvalla

Judge

1-Munsiff

Acts & Sections

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section Section26,order7,Rule1
IA/1/2026 Classification : Sanction Petition Section Suma V TCicily
IA/2/2026 Classification : Absent Petition Section Suma V TCicily
IA/3/2026 Classification : Sanction Petition Section Suma V TCicily
IA/4/2026 Classification : Petition Section Suma V TCicily

Petitioner(s)

Suma V T

Adv. C Rajesh kumar

Thankamma P T

Adv. JINACHANDRAN. V

Respondent(s)

Cicily Advocate - RAJESH KUMAR C

Shino Mon

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Munsiff

28-03-2026

Defence Evidence

23-03-2026

Defence Evidence

11-03-2026

For Defendent Evidence

05-03-2026

Defence Evidence

24-02-2026

Defence Evidence

Interim Orders

27-11-2019
Judgement

Summary: The suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction was allowed and decreed by the Munsiff Court, Thiruvalla on 27 November 2019. The court declared that the disputed pathway (thodu/nadavazhi) constitutes the legitimate right of way to the plaintiffs' property and restrained the defendants from obstructing, altering, or encroaching upon it. The court found the plaintiffs' claims substantiated by affidavits and documentary evidence, dismissing the defendants' contentions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction was allowed and decreed by the Munsiff Court, Thiruvalla on 27 November 2019. The court declared that the disputed pathway (thodu/nadavazhi) constitutes the legitimate right of way to the plaintiffs' property and restrained the defendants from obstructing, altering, or encroaching upon it. The court found the plaintiffs' claims substantiated by affidavits and documentary evidence, dismissing the defendants' contentions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Munsiff Court, Thiruvalla All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case