Prasanna vs Nijeesh Advocate - Suresh Muraleedharan — 100549/2021

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Rule 7,act 1. Status: Adjourned. Next hearing: 08th September 2026.

OS - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KLTR190010092021

Adjourned

Next Hearing

08th September 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

100549/2021

Filing Date

09-07-2021

Registration No

100549/2021

Registration Date

09-07-2021

Court

Munsiffcourt, Kodungallur

Judge

1-MUNSIFF KODUNGALLUR

Acts & Sections

Civil Procedure Code Section Rule 7,act 1
IA/1/2026 Classification : Petition Section PrasannaNijeesh
IA/2/2026 Classification : Petition Section PrasannaNijeesh

Petitioner(s)

Prasanna

Adv. Adv.TM.Sabala

Aneesh

Respondent(s)

Nijeesh Advocate - Suresh Muraleedharan

Ashokan

Anitha

Rajeena

Hearing History

Judge: 1-MUNSIFF KODUNGALLUR

08-04-2026

Adjourned

11-03-2026

BCF and steps

07-02-2026

Issues

02-02-2026

Call on

20-11-2025

Listed to

Interim Orders

12-06-2025
Order
12-06-2025
Order
12-06-2025
Order
12-06-2025
Order

Summary: The Munsiff Court of Kodungallur dismissed the plaintiffs' petition seeking to amend their affidavit and injunction application (I.A.1/21) in a property dispute case. The court held that affidavits are sworn statements that cannot be amended substantively under CPC rules; instead, plaintiffs must file additional affidavits with court permission if circumstances change. The petition was dismissed, as the attempted amendments introduced new factual claims and prayers that should not modify the original sworn statement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Munsiff Court of Kodungallur dismissed the plaintiffs' petition seeking to amend their affidavit and injunction application (I.A.1/21) in a property dispute case. The court held that affidavits are sworn statements that cannot be amended substantively under CPC rules; instead, plaintiffs must file additional affidavits with court permission if circumstances change. The petition was dismissed, as the attempted amendments introduced new factual claims and prayers that should not modify the original sworn statement. 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

Munsiffcourt, Kodungallur All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case