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

call on

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

Civil Procedure Code Section 26 OrdersIV,VI&VII
Specific Relief Act 1963 \ Section 16 to 20
IA/1/2026 Classification : Injunction Application Section DeepakPeter Sunderdas
IA/2/2026 Classification : Petition Section DeepakPeter Sunderdas

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

20-05-2026

call on

31-03-2026

FOR HEARING

12-03-2026

Objection

16-12-2025

Issues

15-10-2025

Issues

Interim Orders

15-10-2025
Order

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Sub Court Nedumangadu All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case