Shajahan vs Shani Makkar Advocate - G Suresh — 200021/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Order 7 Rule 1. Status: FOR HEARING. Next hearing: 25th May 2026.

OS - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KLER500001042024

FOR HEARING

Next Hearing

25th May 2026

e-Filing Number

02-03-2024

Filing Number

200111/2024

Filing Date

02-03-2024

Registration No

200021/2024

Registration Date

02-03-2024

Court

Sub Court , Muvattupuzha

Judge

1-SUB JUDGE

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Section Order 7 Rule 1
IA/1/2026 Classification : Advance Application Section ShajahanShani Makkar
IA/2/2026 Classification : Petition Section ShajahanShani Makkar

Petitioner(s)

Shajahan

Adv. JIJO JOSEPH

Respondent(s)

Shani Makkar Advocate - G Suresh

Hearing History

Judge: 1-SUB JUDGE

08-04-2026

FOR HEARING

19-03-2026

For hearing on IA

09-03-2026

For hearing on IA

24-02-2026

For Objection and hearing

23-02-2026

Orders in IA

Interim Orders

19-03-2024
Order
19-03-2024
Order

Court Order Summary Petition Dismissed The Sub Judge of Muvattupuzha dismissed the plaintiff's application for conditional attachment of the defendant's property on March 19, 2024. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for the claimed ₹30 lakh loan, citing inconsistencies in the plaintiff's statements, violation of Income Tax Act Section 269 ST (prohibiting cash transactions exceeding ₹2 lakh), and witnesses denying knowledge of the promissory note's execution. Each party bears their own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

24-02-2026

Order

casestatus.in Summary

Court Order Summary Petition Dismissed The Sub Judge of Muvattupuzha dismissed the plaintiff's application for conditional attachment of the defendant's property on March 19, 2024. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for the claimed ₹30 lakh loan, citing inconsistencies in the plaintiff's statements, violation of Income Tax Act Section 269 ST (prohibiting cash transactions exceeding ₹2 lakh), and witnesses denying knowledge of the promissory note's execution. Each party bears their own costs. 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 , Muvattupuzha All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case