Sandhya vs Nirmala — 300397/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Status: Return of summons. Next hearing: 11th June 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLTV430006152023
Next Hearing
11th June 2026
Filing Number
423/2023
Filing Date
31-07-2023
Registration No
300397/2023
Registration Date
31-07-2023
Court
Munsiff Court Attingal
Judge
1-MUNSIFF ATTINGAL
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sandhya
Adv. Kilimanoor S Suresh
Mini
Maniyan
Biju
Respondent(s)
Nirmala
Muraleedharan
Satheeshkumar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-MUNSIFF ATTINGAL
Return of summons
Return of summons
Return of summons
For Objection and hearing
Further evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 22-05-2026 | Return of summons |
| 07-04-2026 | Return of summons |
| 12-03-2026 | Return of summons |
| 21-02-2026 | For Objection and hearing |
| 30-01-2026 | Further evidence |
Interim Orders
CASE OUTCOME SUMMARY: The petition filed by the defendants (Nirmala and Muraleedharan) seeking a mandatory injunction to restrain respondents from obstructing their construction activities has been dismissed with costs. The Munsiff Court found that the petitioners failed to establish the three essential requirements for granting mandatory injunction: a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. The court upheld the earlier temporary injunction order protecting the respondents' lateral support rights and found the loss of lateral support more critical than the petitioners' construction rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
CASE OUTCOME SUMMARY: The petition filed by the defendants (Nirmala and Muraleedharan) seeking a mandatory injunction to restrain respondents from obstructing their construction activities has been dismissed with costs. The Munsiff Court found that the petitioners failed to establish the three essential requirements for granting mandatory injunction: a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. The court upheld the earlier temporary injunction order protecting the respondents' lateral support rights and found the loss of lateral support more critical than the petitioners' construction rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts