Anthony vs Jacob Advocate - XAVIOUR N.O. — 200013/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Order43Rule1. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 26th March 2026.
CMA - CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL
CNR: KLTR130001652023
e-Filing Number
21-03-2023
Filing Number
161/2023
Filing Date
21-03-2023
Registration No
200013/2023
Registration Date
21-03-2023
Court
Sub Court, Irinjalakuda
Judge
1-Principal Sub Judge
Decision Date
26th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Anthony
Adv. WILSON JOSE
Sijo
Adv. WILSON JOSE
Respondent(s)
Jacob Advocate - XAVIOUR N.O.
Biju
Adv. XAVIOUR N.O.
Unnikrishnan
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal Sub Judge
Disposed
Order/Judgement
No sitting notified
For Counter
For commission report
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 26-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 23-03-2026 | Order/Judgement |
| 19-03-2026 | No sitting notified |
| 16-03-2026 | For Counter |
| 09-03-2026 | For commission report |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Anthony and Sijo v. Jacob Advocate (200013/2023) The court dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal for an injunction restraining defendants from obstructing natural water flow through defendants' properties. While the court found the plaintiffs established a prima facie case that excess water flows through the defendants' land, it held that the balance of convenience favored the defendants, as the Advocate Commissioner's inspection revealed alternative drainage routes (eastern canal) available to the plaintiffs. The court ruled that granting the injunction would cause greater hardship to the defendants than refusing it would to the plaintiffs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Anthony and Sijo v. Jacob Advocate (200013/2023) The court dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal for an injunction restraining defendants from obstructing natural water flow through defendants' properties. While the court found the plaintiffs established a prima facie case that excess water flows through the defendants' land, it held that the balance of convenience favored the defendants, as the Advocate Commissioner's inspection revealed alternative drainage routes (eastern canal) available to the plaintiffs. The court ruled that granting the injunction would cause greater hardship to the defendants than refusing it would to the plaintiffs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts