Manikandan vs Badharudeen Advocate - Sajith, Ambili S Nair — 67/2026
Case under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section Order 7 Rule 1. Status: No sitting notified. Next hearing: 10th July 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLTR230000992026
Next Hearing
10th July 2026
Filing Number
65/2026
Filing Date
26-02-2026
Registration No
67/2026
Registration Date
26-02-2026
Court
Munsiff Court, Wadakkanchery
Judge
1-Munsiff, Wadakkanchery
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Manikandan
Adv. Biju Joseph Edakkalathur, Biju Joseph Edakkalathur
Respondent(s)
Badharudeen Advocate - Sajith, Ambili S Nair
Kerala State Rep by District Collector Thrissur
Tahasildar Talappilly Taluk Wadakanchery
Village Officer Wadakanchery
Wadakanchery Muncipality Rep by Secretary
Wadakanchery Muncipality
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Munsiff, Wadakkanchery
No sitting notified
For commission report
No sitting notified
Issue notice
Call on
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 25-05-2026 | No sitting notified |
| 07-04-2026 | For commission report |
| 04-04-2026 | No sitting notified |
| 01-04-2026 | Issue notice |
| 26-03-2026 | Call on |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: O.S. 67/2026 Outcome: Temporary injunction GRANTED in favor of plaintiff Manikandan. The Munsiff's Court restrained defendant Badarudheen from continuing any construction activity in his property until either the suit is disposed or a concrete retaining wall is constructed to replace the deteriorating old mud-and-stone wall separating the two properties. The court found a prima facie case that the defendant's construction work was destabilizing the boundary retaining wall, posing threats to the plaintiff's property and life in a landslide-prone hilly area. Balance of convenience favored the plaintiff given documented land-sliding incidents in the locality. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: O.S. 67/2026 Outcome: Temporary injunction GRANTED in favor of plaintiff Manikandan. The Munsiff's Court restrained defendant Badarudheen from continuing any construction activity in his property until either the suit is disposed or a concrete retaining wall is constructed to replace the deteriorating old mud-and-stone wall separating the two properties. The court found a prima facie case that the defendant's construction work was destabilizing the boundary retaining wall, posing threats to the plaintiff's property and life in a landslide-prone hilly area. Balance of convenience favored the plaintiff given documented land-sliding incidents in the locality. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts