Sunitha Nandan vs Ambili — 399/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Section 26 Order 7 Rule 1 and 2. Disposed: Uncontested--DECREED WITH COST on 21st March 2026.

Case disposed

OS - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KLAL220005322025

Filing Number

544/2025

Filing Date

19-Nov-2025

Registration No

399/2025

Registration Date

19-Nov-2025

Court

Munsiff Court, Haripad

Judge

1-Munsiff, Haripad

Decision Date

21-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DECREED WITH COST

Last updated 25-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section Section 26 Order 7 Rule 1 and 2

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sunitha Nandan

    Adv. SIVAPRASAD B

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Ambili

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 21-Mar-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    The Munsiff's Court in Haripad decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of advance money, holding the defendant liable for ₹3,59,000 (₹3,00,000 advance plus ₹50,000 damages) with 12% interest from the suit date until decree and 6% thereafter. The court found the defendant breached the property sale agreement by refusing to execute the deed and subsequently encumbering the property, entitling the plaintiff to a charge over the defendant's 6-acre property to secure the advance payment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 21-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Munsiff, Haripad

  4. 12-Mar-2026

    Order/ Judgement

    Munsiff, Haripad

  5. 18-Feb-2026

    Bcf and steps

    Munsiff, Haripad

  6. 19-Jan-2026

    Bcf and steps

    Munsiff, Haripad

  7. 19-Dec-2025

    For return of summons

    Munsiff, Haripad

  8. 19-Nov-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 19-Nov-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 399/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The Munsiff's Court in Haripad decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of advance money, holding the defendant liable for ₹3,59,000 (₹3,00,000 advance plus ₹50,000 damages) with 12% interest from the suit date until decree and 6% thereafter. The court found the defendant breached the property sale agreement by refusing to execute the deed and subsequently encumbering the property, entitling the plaintiff to a charge over the defendant's 6-acre property to secure the advance payment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case