Beena Kumari vs Kumari Amma J. — 300162/2015

Case under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 26. Status: Report on mediation. Next hearing: 11th June 2026.

OS - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KLTV430001652015

Report on mediation

Next Hearing

11th June 2026

Filing Number

1580/2015

Filing Date

24-03-2015

Registration No

300162/2015

Registration Date

24-03-2015

Court

Munsiff Court Attingal

Judge

1-MUNSIFF ATTINGAL

Acts & Sections

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 26
Ia/3/2025 Classification : Petition to Remove from List Section Beena KumariKumari Amma J
Ia/4/2025 Classification : Petition Section Beena KumariKumari Amma J
Ia/5/2025 Classification : Petition Section Beena KumariKumari Amma J
Ia/1/2026 Classification : Amendment Application Section Beena KumariKumari Amma J
Ia/2/2026 Classification : Advance Application Section Beena KumariKumari Amma J
Ia/3/2026 Classification : Injunction Application Section Beena KumariKumari Amma J

Petitioner(s)

Beena Kumari

Adv. S. Suresh Kumar

Sreelatha Mohan A.

Adv. S. Suresh Kumar

Respondent(s)

Kumari Amma J.

Hearing History

Judge: 1-MUNSIFF ATTINGAL

31-03-2026

Report on mediation

12-03-2026

Report on mediation

10-02-2026

Report on mediation

09-02-2026

Appearance Of Parties

06-02-2026

For hearing on IA

Interim Orders

03-01-2026
Order

Court Order Summary Petition Dismissed. The Munsiff Court of Attingal dismissed the plaintiff's petition seeking directions to authorities to lay water pipelines through the defendant's disputed property (Schedule D pathway). The court held that since the defendant disputed the existence of the pathway, granting the relief would prejudice the defendant and bypass adjudication in the main suit. No costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Court Order Summary Petition Dismissed. The Munsiff Court of Attingal dismissed the plaintiff's petition seeking directions to authorities to lay water pipelines through the defendant's disputed property (Schedule D pathway). The court held that since the defendant disputed the existence of the pathway, granting the relief would prejudice the defendant and bypass adjudication in the main suit. No costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Munsiff Court Attingal All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case