Rosemarry vs Joshy Advocate - K.V RAGHUTHAMAN — 300195/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O 7, R 1. Status: Call on. Next hearing: 23rd July 2026.

OS - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KLTR140008722024

Call on

Next Hearing

23rd July 2026

Filing Number

300896/2024

Filing Date

27-03-2024

Registration No

300195/2024

Registration Date

27-03-2024

Court

Munsiff Court, Irinjalakuda

Judge

1-Principal Munsiff

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section O 7, R 1
Ia/7/2025 Classification : Advance Application Section RosemarryJoshy
Ia/8/2025 Classification : Advance Application Section Rosemarry
Ia/9/2025 Classification : Carbon Copy Application Section Rosemarry
Ia/10/2025 Classification : Application for Stay During Pendency of Appeal Section Rosemarry

Petitioner(s)

Rosemarry

Adv. Alphonsa Antony

Ethen Loock Jackson (minor)

Emma mariyam Jackson (Minor)

Respondent(s)

Joshy Advocate - K.V RAGHUTHAMAN

Kochuthressia

Jaison

Joshmi

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Principal Munsiff

16-03-2026

Call on

06-12-2025

Call on

04-12-2025

Pre trial steps

17-11-2025

FOR HEARING

11-11-2025

FOR HEARING

Interim Orders

04-12-2025
Order

Summary of Case 300195/2024 Petition Granted. The Munsiff Court permitted Rose Mary and her minor children (ages 6 and 2½) to construct a gate on the eastern side of their residential property for child safety, as the open boundary abuts a PWD road and canal. The permission is provisional, subject to the main suit's outcome, with petitioners bearing all costs and undertaking not to claim rights over the gate if the suit is decided against them. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case 300195/2024 Petition Granted. The Munsiff Court permitted Rose Mary and her minor children (ages 6 and 2½) to construct a gate on the eastern side of their residential property for child safety, as the open boundary abuts a PWD road and canal. The permission is provisional, subject to the main suit's outcome, with petitioners bearing all costs and undertaking not to claim rights over the gate if the suit is decided against them. 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, Irinjalakuda All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case