SATHEESAN vs SHIBU — 100008/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section ORDERXLIRULE1. Status: FOR HEARING. Next hearing: 09th July 2026.
AS - CIVIL APPEAL
CNR: KLAL100000382025
Next Hearing
09th July 2026
e-Filing Number
17-02-2025
Filing Number
100046/2025
Filing Date
17-02-2025
Registration No
100008/2025
Registration Date
18-02-2025
Court
Sub Court, Cherthala
Judge
1-Sub Judge and Asst.Sessions Judge, Cherthala
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SATHEESAN
Adv. T Jayakrishnan
SANDHYA UD
Adv. T Jayakrishnan
NANDU PS (Police Station)
Adv. T Jayakrishnan
NIDHIN PS (Police Station)
Adv. T Jayakrishnan
Respondent(s)
SHIBU
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Sub Judge and Asst.Sessions Judge, Cherthala
FOR HEARING
Judge on traing programme
FOR HEARING
FOR HEARING
FOR HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 21-05-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 16-03-2026 | Judge on traing programme |
| 12-02-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 13-01-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 01-12-2025 | FOR HEARING |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 100008/2025 The Sub Judge, Cherthala granted a stay of execution on the judgment and decree dated 15.01.2025 in OS 378/2019 pending appeal disposal. The appellants (Satheesan, Sandhya, Nandu, and Nidhin) challenged a possession decree ordering them to vacate a house, claiming they constructed it with personal funds and it was excluded from a Settlement Deed favoring respondent Shibu. The court found the appellants justified in seeking the stay because without it, they would lose possession in execution proceedings before their appeal could be decided, despite raising substantial questions about their property rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 100008/2025 The Sub Judge, Cherthala granted a stay of execution on the judgment and decree dated 15.01.2025 in OS 378/2019 pending appeal disposal. The appellants (Satheesan, Sandhya, Nandu, and Nidhin) challenged a possession decree ordering them to vacate a house, claiming they constructed it with personal funds and it was excluded from a Settlement Deed favoring respondent Shibu. The court found the appellants justified in seeking the stay because without it, they would lose possession in execution proceedings before their appeal could be decided, despite raising substantial questions about their property 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