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.

For reports Next hearing 20-Jun-2026 this date has passed

OS - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KLWD120004112024

e-Filing Number

23-09-2024

Filing Number

300429/2024

Filing Date

23-Sep-2024

Registration No

300196/2024

Registration Date

23-Sep-2024

Court

Munsiff Magistrate court/Rent Control Appellate Authority, Mananthavady

Judge

1-Munsiff Magistrate, Mananthavady

Last updated 20-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section SECTION 26 ORDER VII RULE 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Bobby S Robert

    Adv. Sundar Ram

Respondent(s)

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

Case History

  1. 20-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 09-Mar-2026

    For reports

    Munsiff Magistrate, Mananthavady

  3. 27-Jan-2026

    For reports

    Munsiff Magistrate, Mananthavady

  4. 02-Dec-2025

    For hearing on IA

    Munsiff Magistrate, Mananthavady

  5. 27-Oct-2025

    For hearing on IA

    Munsiff Magistrate, Mananthavady

  6. 26-Aug-2025

    Verify and report

    Munsiff Magistrate, Mananthavady

  7. 29-Jul-2025

    Verify and report

    Munsiff Magistrate, Mananthavady

  8. 18-Jun-2025

    OrderView PDF

    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.

  9. 18-Jun-2025

    Verify and report

    Munsiff Magistrate, Mananthavady

  10. 17-Jun-2025

    Orders in IA

    Munsiff Magistrate, Mananthavady

  11. 16-Jun-2025

    Orders in IA

    Munsiff Magistrate, Mananthavady

  12. 19-May-2025

    Verify and report

    Munsiff Magistrate, Mananthavady

  13. 02-Apr-2025

    Verify and report

    Munsiff Magistrate, Mananthavady

  14. 12-Mar-2025

    Orders in IA

    Munsiff Magistrate, Mananthavady

  15. 11-Mar-2025

    call on

    Munsiff Magistrate, Mananthavady

  16. 05-Mar-2025

    For hearing on IA

    Munsiff Magistrate, Mananthavady

  17. 18-Feb-2025

    For further hearing

    Munsiff Magistrate, Mananthavady

  18. 12-Feb-2025

    Verify and report

    Munsiff Magistrate, Mananthavady

  19. 29-Jan-2025

    For hearing on IA

    Munsiff Magistrate, Mananthavady

  20. 20-Jan-2025

    For Counter in IA

    Munsiff Magistrate, Mananthavady

  21. 11-Dec-2024

    For hearing on IA

    Munsiff Magistrate, Mananthavady

  22. 03-Dec-2024

    For hearing on IA

    Munsiff Magistrate, Mananthavady

  23. 28-Nov-2024

    Adjourned

    Munsiff Magistrate, Mananthavady

  24. 26-Nov-2024

    For Counter in IA

    Munsiff Magistrate, Mananthavady

  25. 25-Nov-2024

    Verify and report

    Munsiff Magistrate, Mananthavady

  26. 19-Nov-2024

    Objection

    Munsiff Magistrate, Mananthavady

  27. 02-Nov-2024

    call on

    Munsiff Magistrate, Mananthavady

  28. 23-Oct-2024

    Vakalath

    Munsiff Magistrate, Mananthavady

  29. 23-Sep-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  30. 23-Sep-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 300196/2024

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.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case