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

FOR HEARING

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

Code of Civil Procedure Section ORDERXLIRULE1

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

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

12-09-2025
Order

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Sub Court, Cherthala All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case