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.

Call with IA Next hearing 23-May-2026 this date has passed

EP - EXECUTION PETITION

CNR: KLER760001542021

Filing Number

300149/2021

Filing Date

04-Oct-2021

Registration No

300017/2021

Registration Date

04-Oct-2021

Court

Munsiff court Kothamangalam

Judge

1-Munsiff

Last updated 27-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section Order 21

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Jyothi

    Adv. Martindas V. James

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Divakaran Advocate - V.M. Biju Kumar.

  2. 2.Omana

    Adv. V. M. Biju Kumar

Case History

  1. 23-May-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 25-Mar-2026

    Call with IA

    Munsiff

  3. 21-Mar-2026

    For production of documents/Affidavit

    Munsiff

  4. 07-Mar-2026

    For production of documents/Affidavit

    Munsiff

  5. 16-Feb-2026

    For production of documents/Affidavit

    Munsiff

  6. 30-Jan-2026

    Call on

    Munsiff

  7. 19-Dec-2025

    OrderView PDF

    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.

  8. 19-Dec-2025

    For affidavit.

    Munsiff

  9. 21-Nov-2025

    For production of documents/Affidavit

    Munsiff

  10. 20-Nov-2025

    For Hearing

    Munsiff

  11. 24-Oct-2025

    Call with IA

    Munsiff

  12. 27-Sep-2025

    OrderView PDF

  13. 27-Sep-2025

    Call with IA

    Munsiff

  14. 27-Aug-2025

    For Orders in Ea

    Munsiff

  15. 18-Jul-2025

    Orders in IA

    Munsiff

  16. 22-Mar-2025

    Call with IA

    Munsiff

  17. 17-Mar-2025

    Call with IA

    Munsiff

  18. 01-Mar-2025

    Call with IA

    Munsiff

  19. 22-Feb-2025

    Call with IA

    Munsiff

  20. 14-Feb-2025

    Return of notice

    Munsiff

  21. 23-Jan-2025

    For Steps

    Munsiff

  22. 03-Jan-2025

    Orders in IA

    Munsiff

  23. 29-Nov-2024

    Orders in IA

    Munsiff

  24. 19-Oct-2024

    Orders in IA

    Munsiff

  25. 10-Oct-2024

    Call with IA

    Munsiff

  26. 13-Sep-2024

    Call with IA

    Munsiff

  27. 19-Aug-2024

    Call with IA

    Munsiff

  28. 24-Jul-2024

    for evidence

    Munsiff

  29. 12-Apr-2024

    Call with IA

    Munsiff

  30. 29-Feb-2024

    Call with IA

    Munsiff

  31. 09-Feb-2024

    Order/Judgement

    Munsiff

  32. 16-Dec-2023

    Order/Judgement

    Munsiff

  33. 04-Nov-2023

    Order/Judgement

    Munsiff

  34. 06-Oct-2023

    Order/Judgement

    Munsiff

  35. 13-Jul-2023

    For Hearing

    Munsiff

  36. 13-Apr-2023

    For Hearing

    Munsiff

  37. 30-Mar-2023

    For Hearing

    Munsiff

  38. 03-Mar-2023

    For Hearing

    Munsiff

  39. 28-Jan-2023

    Call on

    Munsiff

  40. 08-Dec-2022

    Call on

    Munsiff

  41. 17-Nov-2022

    Orders in IA

    Munsiff

  42. 29-Oct-2022

    For Hearing

    Munsiff

  43. 29-Sep-2022

    For Hearing

    Munsiff

  44. 25-Aug-2022

    For Counter

    Munsiff

  45. 29-Jul-2022

    For Counter

    Munsiff

  46. 16-Jun-2022

    For Counter

    Munsiff

  47. 26-May-2022

    For Counter

    Munsiff

  48. 04-Feb-2022

    Objection

    Munsiff

  49. 12-Nov-2021

    Objection

    Munsiff

  50. 04-Oct-2021

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  51. 04-Oct-2021

    Case filed

    Registration No. 300017/2021

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.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case