Anthonykutty vs Domini @ Dominic — 54/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section section 9 order IX. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED on 06th April 2026.
Restor.Ptn - RESTORATION PETITION
CNR: KLTR130006172025
Filing Number
3430/2025
Filing Date
12-09-2025
Registration No
54/2025
Registration Date
15-09-2025
Court
Sub Court, Irinjalakuda
Judge
2-Additional Sub Judge
Decision Date
06th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Anthonykutty
Adv. DAVIS POTTAKARAN
George
Adv. DAVIS POTTAKARAN
Paul
Adv. DAVIS POTTAKARAN
Naijo
Adv. DAVIS POTTAKARAN
Shaijo Rep. Anthonykutty
Adv. DAVIS POTTAKARAN
Shaiji
Adv. DAVIS POTTAKARAN
Respondent(s)
Domini @ Dominic
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Additional Sub Judge
Disposed
Order/ Judgement
FOR HEARING
FOR HEARING
For paper Publication
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 27-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 16-03-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 04-02-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 19-01-2026 | For paper Publication |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court allowed the restoration petition filed by Anthonikutty, George, Paul, and others to restore their partition suit that was dismissed for default on 13.08.2025. The court accepted their explanation that the petitioner suffered from dengue fever and could not appear in court, found no willful latches, and noted the petition was filed within time on 15.09.2025. The court restored the suit to file in the interests of justice, as denying restoration would leave the petitioners without remedy for property partition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court allowed the restoration petition filed by Anthonikutty, George, Paul, and others to restore their partition suit that was dismissed for default on 13.08.2025. The court accepted their explanation that the petitioner suffered from dengue fever and could not appear in court, found no willful latches, and noted the petition was filed within time on 15.09.2025. The court restored the suit to file in the interests of justice, as denying restoration would leave the petitioners without remedy for property partition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts