Paily vs Lissy Sajeev Advocate - HARISH CHAND. D — 100024/2019

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 21. Status: Stay report. Next hearing: 18th May 2026.

EP - EXECUTION PETITION

CNR: KLAL100001772019

Stay report

Next Hearing

18th May 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

100176/2019

Filing Date

05-09-2019

Registration No

100024/2019

Registration Date

05-09-2019

Court

Sub Court, Cherthala

Judge

1-Sub Judge and Asst.Sessions Judge, Cherthala

Acts & Sections

Civil Procedure Code Section 21
EA/1/2025 Classification : Section Lissy SajeevPaily
EA/2/2025 Classification : Sanction Petition Section Paily
EA/3/2025 Classification : Review Petition Section Lissy SajeevPaily
IA/4/2025 Classification : Petition Section Lissy SajeevPaily
EA/5/2025 Classification : Petition Section Lissy SajeevPaily

Petitioner(s)

Paily

Adv. Joji.K.Antony

Respondent(s)

Lissy Sajeev Advocate - HARISH CHAND. D

Martha John

Adv. HARISH CHAND. D

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Sub Judge and Asst.Sessions Judge, Cherthala

09-03-2026

Stay report

07-02-2026

Await report

16-01-2026

Verify and report

20-12-2025

Verify and report

12-12-2025

Verify and report

Interim Orders

03-11-2023
Order
13-11-2025
Order

Summary: The Sub Judge, Cherthala dismissed the Execution Application (EA 5/2025) filed by judgment debtors Liji Sajeev and Martha John with costs. The judgment debtors sought to deposit an FD receipt of Rs. 3,00,000 as security in compliance with High Court directions; however, the court rejected this, holding it had no authority to deviate from the High Court's explicit direction to deposit cash before the court and that an FD receipt was insufficient security. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Sub Judge, Cherthala dismissed the Execution Application (EA 5/2025) filed by judgment debtors Liji Sajeev and Martha John with costs. The judgment debtors sought to deposit an FD receipt of Rs. 3,00,000 as security in compliance with High Court directions; however, the court rejected this, holding it had no authority to deviate from the High Court's explicit direction to deposit cash before the court and that an FD receipt was insufficient security. 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