Sandhya vs Nirmala — 300397/2023

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Status: Return of summons. Next hearing: 11th June 2026.

Return of summons Next hearing 11-Jun-2026 this date has passed

OS - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KLTV430006152023

Filing Number

423/2023

Filing Date

31-Jul-2023

Registration No

300397/2023

Registration Date

31-Jul-2023

Court

Munsiff Court Attingal

Judge

1-Munsiff Attingal

Last updated 25-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 26

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sandhya

    Adv. Kilimanoor S Suresh

  2. 2.Mini

  3. 3.Maniyan

  4. 4.Biju

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Nirmala

  2. 2.Muraleedharan

  3. 3.Satheeshkumar

Case History

  1. 11-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 22-May-2026

    Return of summons

    Munsiff Attingal

  3. 07-Apr-2026

    Return of summons

    Munsiff Attingal

  4. 12-Mar-2026

    Return of summons

    Munsiff Attingal

  5. 21-Feb-2026

    For Objection and hearing

    Munsiff Attingal

  6. 30-Jan-2026

    Further evidence

    Munsiff Attingal

  7. 20-Dec-2025

    For Examination of Witness

    Munsiff Attingal

  8. 23-Oct-2025

    No sitting notified

    Munsiff Attingal

  9. 10-Oct-2025

    For Examination of Witness

    Munsiff Attingal

  10. 30-Sep-2025

    Declared Holidays

    Munsiff Attingal

  11. 22-Sep-2025

    for evidence.

    Munsiff Attingal

  12. 19-Sep-2025

    For Examination of Witness

    Munsiff Attingal

  13. 26-Aug-2025

    For Examination of Witness

    Munsiff Attingal

  14. 19-Aug-2025

    Call on

    Munsiff Attingal

  15. 04-Aug-2025

    Call on

    Munsiff Attingal

  16. 28-Jun-2025

    Listed to

    Munsiff Attingal

  17. 18-Jun-2025

    Pre trial steps

    Munsiff Attingal

  18. 22-May-2025

    Pre trial steps

    Munsiff Attingal

  19. 04-Apr-2025

    Pre trial steps

    Munsiff Attingal

  20. 22-Mar-2025

    Issues

    Munsiff Attingal

  21. 11-Mar-2025

    Issues

    Munsiff Attingal

  22. 22-Jan-2025

    OrderView PDF

  23. 22-Jan-2025

    OrderView PDF

    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.

  24. 22-Jan-2025

    Written Statement

    Munsiff Attingal

  25. 09-Jan-2025

    Order/Judgement

    Munsiff Attingal

  26. 13-Dec-2024

    Order/Judgement

    Munsiff Attingal

  27. 30-Nov-2024

    Order/Judgement

    Munsiff Attingal

  28. 26-Nov-2024

    Order/Judgement

    Munsiff Attingal

  29. 13-Nov-2024

    Order/Judgement

    Munsiff Attingal

  30. 12-Nov-2024

    For hearing on IA

    Munsiff Attingal

  31. 08-Nov-2024

    For hearing on IA

    Munsiff Attingal

  32. 07-Nov-2024

    For hearing on IA

    Munsiff Attingal

  33. 28-Oct-2024

    For Hearing

    Munsiff Attingal

  34. 16-Oct-2024

    For Hearing

    Munsiff Attingal

  35. 17-Aug-2024

    Written Statement

    Munsiff Attingal

  36. 11-Mar-2024

    Written Statement

    Munsiff Attingal

  37. 21-Dec-2023

    OrderView PDF

  38. 21-Dec-2023

    OrderView PDF

  39. 21-Dec-2023

    Written Statement

    Munsiff Attingal

  40. 30-Nov-2023

    Call on

    Munsiff Attingal

  41. 27-Nov-2023

    Call on

    Munsiff Attingal

  42. 14-Nov-2023

    Orders in IA

    Munsiff Attingal

  43. 03-Nov-2023

    Order/Judgement

    Munsiff Attingal

  44. 27-Oct-2023

    Call on

    Munsiff Attingal

  45. 13-Oct-2023

    For Hearing

    Munsiff Attingal

  46. 12-Sep-2023

    For Hearing

    Munsiff Attingal

  47. 25-Aug-2023

    For Hearing

    Munsiff Attingal

  48. 18-Aug-2023

    For commission report

    Munsiff Attingal

  49. 02-Aug-2023

    For commission report

    Munsiff Attingal

  50. 01-Aug-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  51. 31-Jul-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 300397/2023

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case