Babu vs Santhakumari — 31/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 91 ORDER 41. Status: Issue notice. Next hearing: 17th July 2026.
AS - CIVIL APPEAL
CNR: KLTV330001802025
Filing Number
181/2025
Filing Date
07-Oct-2025
Registration No
31/2025
Registration Date
09-Oct-2025
Court
Sub Court Nedumangadu
Judge
1-Sub Judge And Assistant Sessions Judge Nedumangad
Last updated 25-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Babu
Adv. AJITH S D
-
2.2. Sudhakumari
Adv. AJITH S D
Respondent(s)
-
1.Santhakumari
-
2.Prasanth
-
3.Krishnapriya
-
4.Savithri
-
5.Reshma
-
6.Swapna
-
7.Renju
Case History
-
17-Jul-2026
Next hearingPending
-
06-Apr-2026
OrderView PDF
Court Order Summary The Sub Judge Court of Nedumangad allowed the application for condonation of delay. The court condoned a 140-day delay in preferring an appeal by the petitioners (Babu and Sudhakumari) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, finding that the first petitioner's illness due to spinal cord surgery constituted sufficient cause for the delay. No costs were awarded as respondents did not appear. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
06-Apr-2026
Issue notice
Sub Judge And Assistant Sessions Judge Nedumangad
-
26-Mar-2026
For orders in IA
Sub Judge And Assistant Sessions Judge Nedumangad
-
12-Mar-2026
For Orders
Sub Judge And Assistant Sessions Judge Nedumangad
-
25-Feb-2026
call on
Sub Judge And Assistant Sessions Judge Nedumangad
-
16-Dec-2025
For L C R
Sub Judge And Assistant Sessions Judge Nedumangad
-
12-Nov-2025
call on
Sub Judge And Assistant Sessions Judge Nedumangad
-
14-Oct-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
07-Oct-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 31/2025
Court Order Summary The Sub Judge Court of Nedumangad allowed the application for condonation of delay. The court condoned a 140-day delay in preferring an appeal by the petitioners (Babu and Sudhakumari) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, finding that the first petitioner's illness due to spinal cord surgery constituted sufficient cause for the delay. No costs were awarded as respondents did not appear. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts