Varuvel vs T. Abraham Thobias Advocate - S. Rajesh — 31/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Status: IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending. Next hearing: 01st June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNKK080000362023
Next Hearing
01st June 2026
Filing Number
51/2023
Filing Date
08-03-2023
Registration No
31/2023
Registration Date
25-03-2023
Court
Principal District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram
Judge
2-Principal District Munsif
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Varuvel
Adv. A.P. Rajan
Respondent(s)
T. Abraham Thobias Advocate - S. Rajesh
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Principal District Munsif
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-04-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 18-04-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 15-04-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 07-04-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 27-03-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary In O.S. No. 31/2023 before the Principal District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram (dated 27.10.2025), the court recorded cross-examination of witness P.W.2. The witness testified regarding rubber trees on disputed land and acknowledged that the plaintiff and his wife have been harvesting rubber. The court noted the witness's testimony about an agreement made in 2018 concerning the land division, but found the witness's statement that he was providing biased testimony in favor of the plaintiff to be inadmissible and incorrect. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary In O.S. No. 31/2023 before the Principal District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram (dated 27.10.2025), the court recorded cross-examination of witness P.W.2. The witness testified regarding rubber trees on disputed land and acknowledged that the plaintiff and his wife have been harvesting rubber. The court noted the witness's testimony about an agreement made in 2018 concerning the land division, but found the witness's statement that he was providing biased testimony in favor of the plaintiff to be inadmissible and incorrect. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts