MUHAMMAD KUTTY vs ISMAIL — 100868/2004
Case under Civil Courts Act, 1957 (kerala) Section ORDER7RULE1. Status: No sitting notified. Next hearing: 18th June 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLTR190000112004
Next Hearing
18th June 2026
Filing Number
100628/2004
Filing Date
18-03-2004
Registration No
100868/2004
Registration Date
18-03-2004
Court
Munsiffcourt, Kodungallur
Judge
1-MUNSIFF KODUNGALLUR
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
MUHAMMAD KUTTY
Adv. T.K.PRABHAKRAN
Respondent(s)
ISMAIL
iQBAL
SHINA
RUKIYA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-MUNSIFF KODUNGALLUR
No sitting notified
Call on
Listed to
Order/ Judgement
FOR HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-06-2026 | No sitting notified |
| 16-03-2026 | Call on |
| 25-02-2026 | Listed to |
| 24-02-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 23-02-2026 | FOR HEARING |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: O.S. 868/2004 Outcome: Petition dismissed. The Munsiff Court rejected the plaintiffs' petition to amend the plaint in this 22-year-old boundary dispute case. The court found the amendment petition contradictory and highly belated—the plaintiffs had earlier challenged the advocate commissioner's report but now sought to amend the plaint based on that same report. The court determined that allowing the amendment would fundamentally alter the suit's nature by removing recovery of possession and mandatory injunction reliefs, and noted the plaintiffs failed to seek such amendments despite the case being tried, decreed, and appealed previously. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: O.S. 868/2004 Outcome: Petition dismissed. The Munsiff Court rejected the plaintiffs' petition to amend the plaint in this 22-year-old boundary dispute case. The court found the amendment petition contradictory and highly belated—the plaintiffs had earlier challenged the advocate commissioner's report but now sought to amend the plaint based on that same report. The court determined that allowing the amendment would fundamentally alter the suit's nature by removing recovery of possession and mandatory injunction reliefs, and noted the plaintiffs failed to seek such amendments despite the case being tried, decreed, and appealed previously. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts