Bobby S Robert vs Vilma Juliet Advocate - Midhun Babu and K.K.Sebastian — 300196/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section SECTION 26 ORDER VII RULE 1. Status: For reports. Next hearing: 20th June 2026.

OS - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KLWD120004112024

For reports

Next Hearing

20th June 2026

e-Filing Number

23-09-2024

Filing Number

300429/2024

Filing Date

23-09-2024

Registration No

300196/2024

Registration Date

23-09-2024

Court

Munsiff Magistrate court/Rent Control Appellate Authority, Mananthavady

Judge

1-Munsiff Magistrate, Mananthavady

Acts & Sections

Civil Procedure Code Section SECTION 26 ORDER VII RULE 1
IA/10/2025 Classification : Section Bobby S RobertVilma Juliet
IA/11/2025 Classification : Section Bobby S RobertVilma Juliet
IA/12/2025 Classification : Section Vilma JulietBobby S Robert

Petitioner(s)

Bobby S Robert

Adv. Sundar Ram

Respondent(s)

Vilma Juliet Advocate - Midhun Babu and K.K.Sebastian

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Munsiff Magistrate, Mananthavady

09-03-2026

For reports

27-01-2026

For reports

02-12-2025

For hearing on IA

27-10-2025

For hearing on IA

26-08-2025

Verify and report

Interim Orders

18-06-2025
Order

Case Summary Petition Dismissed. The Munsiff-Magistrate Court rejected the petitioner's application for a temporary mandatory injunction to restore access to his property via an allegedly obstructed pathway (Plaint B schedule property). The court found insufficient evidence at this stage to establish that the respondents violated the earlier interim injunction order or altered the property's status quo, noting that the advocate commissioner's inspection occurred only three days after suit institution, making findings inconclusive. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary Petition Dismissed. The Munsiff-Magistrate Court rejected the petitioner's application for a temporary mandatory injunction to restore access to his property via an allegedly obstructed pathway (Plaint B schedule property). The court found insufficient evidence at this stage to establish that the respondents violated the earlier interim injunction order or altered the property's status quo, noting that the advocate commissioner's inspection occurred only three days after suit institution, making findings inconclusive. 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 Magistrate court/Rent Control Appellate Authority, Mananthavady All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case