Muhammed Ashraf vs Sasidharan Advocate - JEEVAN M. G. — 300237/2016
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 7(1). Status: FOR HEARING. Next hearing: 04th June 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLER320004762016
Next Hearing
04th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
300237/2016
Filing Date
21-10-2016
Registration No
300237/2016
Registration Date
21-10-2016
Court
Sub Court, North Paravur
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL SUB JUDGE AND ASST SESSIONS JUDGE, North Paravur
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Muhammed Ashraf
Adv. RISHAD P. H.
Doulath Ashraf
Adv. RISHAD P. H.
Haby Ashraf
Heba Ashraf
K Hyder
Abdhu salam
Sainaba K.a
Balkees karim
Respondent(s)
Sasidharan Advocate - JEEVAN M. G.
Jayalakshmi
Adv. JEEVAN M. G.
Santha Matha Spiritual Mission ,Registered Office.
Adv. SALINY KRISHNAKUMAR
Dr.P. Appukuttan Nair.
Adv. SALINY KRISHNAKUMAR
Anitha
Adv. BALAMURALEEDHARAN G.
Asha Prasannakumar
Adv. SUNIL KUMAR PAI C. S.
Asok@ Anil
Adv. SUNIL KUMAR PAI C. S.
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL SUB JUDGE AND ASST SESSIONS JUDGE, North Paravur
FOR HEARING
FOR HEARING
FOR HEARING
FOR HEARING
FOR HEARING
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-04-2026 | FOR HEARING | |
| 01-04-2026 | FOR HEARING | |
| 23-03-2026 | FOR HEARING | |
| 09-03-2026 | FOR HEARING | |
| 27-02-2026 | FOR HEARING |
Interim Orders
Summary: The petition under Section 151 CPC seeking clarification of an attachment order (I.A. No.11/2019) was allowed. The court clarified that the attachment order dated 09.04.2019 has no connection with the property covered by Sale Deed No. 1639/2013, thereby protecting defendant D5's property from the adverse effects of the attachment that was intended only for defendants D3 and D4. The order has been directed to be communicated to the Village Office and Sub Registrar's Office. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The petition under Section 151 CPC seeking clarification of an attachment order (I.A. No.11/2019) was allowed. The court clarified that the attachment order dated 09.04.2019 has no connection with the property covered by Sale Deed No. 1639/2013, thereby protecting defendant D5's property from the adverse effects of the attachment that was intended only for defendants D3 and D4. The order has been directed to be communicated to the Village Office and Sub Registrar's Office. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts