Najma vs Vijayan Advocate - N SATHEESH KUMAR, SINDHU P — 200058/2022
Case under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 26. Disposed: Uncontested--REJECTED on 12th March 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLTV330004812022
Filing Number
254/2022
Filing Date
19-08-2022
Registration No
200058/2022
Registration Date
19-08-2022
Court
Sub Court Nedumangadu
Judge
1-SUB JUDGE AND ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE NEDUMANGAD
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--REJECTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Najma
Adv. M.R. Chithralal, RANJITH KUMAR S, Arul KS, KARTHIKA S R
Najeeb
Adv. CHITHRA LAL M R,RANJITH KUMAR S Arul KS KARTHIKA S R
Nijas
Adv. CHITHRA LAL M R,RANJITH KUMAR S Arul KS KARTHIKA S R
Respondent(s)
Vijayan Advocate - N SATHEESH KUMAR, SINDHU P
Lali
Adv. N SATHEESH KUMAR,SINDHU P
Hena
Adv. Ratheesh A,RAJESH M.S. Aravind Babu V
Dhanya
Adv. Ratheesh A,RAJESH M.S. Aravind Babu V
Hearing History
Judge: 1-SUB JUDGE AND ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE NEDUMANGAD
Disposed
BCF and steps
BCF and steps
call on
Issues
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 03-02-2026 | BCF and steps |
| 12-12-2025 | BCF and steps |
| 03-11-2025 | call on |
| 23-06-2025 | Issues |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court rejected the suit (O.S 58/2022) filed by Najma and others against Vijayan and others under Order 7 Rule 11(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, due to the plaintiff's failure to remit the balance court fee despite sufficient opportunities provided. The court dismissed the plaintiff's application seeking additional time for payment and lifted the previously passed attachment order, directing communication of this lifting to the Sub Registrar Office and Village Office. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court rejected the suit (O.S 58/2022) filed by Najma and others against Vijayan and others under Order 7 Rule 11(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, due to the plaintiff's failure to remit the balance court fee despite sufficient opportunities provided. The court dismissed the plaintiff's application seeking additional time for payment and lifted the previously passed attachment order, directing communication of this lifting to the Sub Registrar Office and Village Office. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts