Jyothi vs Divakaran Advocate - V.M. Biju Kumar. — 300017/2021

Case under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section Order 21. Status: Call with IA. Next hearing: 23rd May 2026.

EP - EXECUTION PETITION

CNR: KLER760001542021

Call with IA

Next Hearing

23rd May 2026

Filing Number

300149/2021

Filing Date

04-10-2021

Registration No

300017/2021

Registration Date

04-10-2021

Court

Munsiff court Kothamangalam

Judge

1-Munsiff

Acts & Sections

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section Order 21
IA/15/2025 Classification : Sanction Petition Section JyothiDivakaran
EA/130/2025 Classification : Direction Petition Section DivakaranJyothi
EA/1/2026 Classification : Direction Petition Section JyothiDivakaran
EA/2/2026 Classification : Direction Petition Section JyothiDivakaran

Petitioner(s)

Jyothi

Adv. Martindas V. James

Respondent(s)

Divakaran Advocate - V.M. Biju Kumar.

Omana

Adv. V. M. Biju Kumar

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Munsiff

25-03-2026

Call with IA

21-03-2026

For production of documents/Affidavit

07-03-2026

For production of documents/Affidavit

16-02-2026

For production of documents/Affidavit

30-01-2026

Call on

Interim Orders

27-09-2025
Order
19-12-2025
Order

Case Summary: The petition filed by judgment debtors (father-in-law and mother-in-law) seeking to direct the decree holder to deposit Rs. 14,50,000 toward a bank loan they had mortgaged their property for has been dismissed. The court found that the Lok Adalat compromise award only obligated the decree holder to clear the mortgage on one specific property (with Oonnukal Bank), which she already did, but contained no provision requiring her to pay off the judgment debtors' separate loan with Kavalangadu Service Cooperative Bank. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: The petition filed by judgment debtors (father-in-law and mother-in-law) seeking to direct the decree holder to deposit Rs. 14,50,000 toward a bank loan they had mortgaged their property for has been dismissed. The court found that the Lok Adalat compromise award only obligated the decree holder to clear the mortgage on one specific property (with Oonnukal Bank), which she already did, but contained no provision requiring her to pay off the judgment debtors' separate loan with Kavalangadu Service Cooperative Bank. 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

Munsiff court Kothamangalam All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case