B R D Finance Limited vs Joshy Mathew — 101812/2015

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Order7ruleI. Status: Call on. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.

OS - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KLTR170018002015

Call on

Next Hearing

15th June 2026

Filing Number

104730/2015

Filing Date

10-08-2015

Registration No

101812/2015

Registration Date

10-08-2015

Court

Munsiff Court, Chavakkad

Judge

1-Munsiff Chavakkad

Acts & Sections

Civil Procedure Code Section Order7ruleI
IA/4/2025 Classification : Advance Application Section B R D Finance LimitedJoshy Mathew
IA/5/2025 Classification : Today Moving Petition Section B R D Finance LimitedJoshy Mathew
IA/6/2025 Classification : Miscellaneous Application Section B R D Finance LimitedJoshy Mathew

Petitioner(s)

B R D Finance Limited

Adv. Geofy George.P.

Respondent(s)

Joshy Mathew

Shijo mathew

P.M.Mathew

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Munsiff Chavakkad

16-03-2026

Call on

08-12-2025

Stay report

27-11-2025

Call with IA

12-11-2025

No sitting notified

11-09-2025

Call with IA

Interim Orders

05-07-2025
Order

Case Summary: 101812/2015 Outcome: Petition dismissed with no order as to costs. The Munsiff Court rejected the defendants' (Joshy Mathew, Shijo Mathew, and Leelama Mathew) application to amend their written statement in a money recovery suit based on a chitty (kuri) transaction. The court found that the proposed amendment—filed in 2021, five years after the original written statement (2016)—constituted introduction of entirely new facts and defenses rather than mere clarification of omissions, causing prejudice to the plaintiff. The substantial delay was deemed unjustifiable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 101812/2015 Outcome: Petition dismissed with no order as to costs. The Munsiff Court rejected the defendants' (Joshy Mathew, Shijo Mathew, and Leelama Mathew) application to amend their written statement in a money recovery suit based on a chitty (kuri) transaction. The court found that the proposed amendment—filed in 2021, five years after the original written statement (2016)—constituted introduction of entirely new facts and defenses rather than mere clarification of omissions, causing prejudice to the plaintiff. The substantial delay was deemed unjustifiable. 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, Chavakkad All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case