Peter Sunderdas vs Deepak Advocate - G Jayakumar — 200039/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26 OrdersIV,VI&VII. Status: call on. Next hearing: 06th June 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLTV330002412024
Next Hearing
06th June 2026
e-Filing Number
20-06-2024
Filing Number
152/2024
Filing Date
20-06-2024
Registration No
200039/2024
Registration Date
20-06-2024
Court
Sub Court Nedumangadu
Judge
1-SUB JUDGE AND ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE NEDUMANGAD
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Peter Sunderdas
Adv. ANANDAKUTTAN M R
Respondent(s)
Deepak Advocate - G Jayakumar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-SUB JUDGE AND ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE NEDUMANGAD
call on
FOR HEARING
Objection
Issues
Issues
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 20-05-2026 | call on |
| 31-03-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 12-03-2026 | Objection |
| 16-12-2025 | Issues |
| 15-10-2025 | Issues |
Interim Orders
Summary: The Sub Judge's court granted a temporary injunction in favor of the petitioner (Peter Sunderadas) in his suit for specific performance of a property sale agreement. The defendant was restrained from alienating, encumbering, or damaging the disputed property, which the petitioner had developed as part of a residential villa project. The court found that the petitioner established a prima facie case, balance of convenience favored him (having invested substantial funds in development), and denial of the injunction would cause irreparable injury. Each party bears their own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Sub Judge's court granted a temporary injunction in favor of the petitioner (Peter Sunderadas) in his suit for specific performance of a property sale agreement. The defendant was restrained from alienating, encumbering, or damaging the disputed property, which the petitioner had developed as part of a residential villa project. The court found that the petitioner established a prima facie case, balance of convenience favored him (having invested substantial funds in development), and denial of the injunction would cause irreparable injury. Each party bears their own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts