The Kadavoor Service Co OpBank Ltd No E 1882 vs Chikku Sunil Advocate - ADV. JIJO — 300191/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section order21. Status: With connected case. Next hearing: 10th April 2026.
EP - EXECUTION PETITION
CNR: KLER760003572024
Next Hearing
10th April 2026
e-Filing Number
04-08-2024
Filing Number
300388/2024
Filing Date
06-08-2024
Registration No
300191/2024
Registration Date
06-08-2024
Court
Munsiff court Kothamangalam
Judge
1-Munsiff
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The Kadavoor Service Co OpBank Ltd No E 1882
Adv. Sidharth S Nair, Gigi Peter
Respondent(s)
Chikku Sunil Advocate - ADV. JIJO
Sunil Issac
Adv. ADV. JIJO
Sophy Sunil
Adv. ADV. JIJO
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Munsiff
With connected case
With connected case
With connected case
With connected case
With connected case
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | With connected case |
| 18-03-2026 | With connected case |
| 13-03-2026 | With connected case |
| 07-03-2026 | With connected case |
| 27-02-2026 | With connected case |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Petition Dismissed – The Munsiff Court of Kothamangalam dismissed the judgment debtors' petition seeking to set aside an ex-parte order dated 15.11.2024, finding it barred by limitation. The petition was filed on 30.07.2025, exceeding the 30-day limitation period under Order XXI Rule 106(3) of CPC. The court rejected the debtors' argument that the executing court lacked jurisdiction to pass ex-parte orders, holding that Order XXI Rules 23 and 105 expressly empower such orders upon non-appearance. However, the debtors retain the right to participate in future execution proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Petition Dismissed – The Munsiff Court of Kothamangalam dismissed the judgment debtors' petition seeking to set aside an ex-parte order dated 15.11.2024, finding it barred by limitation. The petition was filed on 30.07.2025, exceeding the 30-day limitation period under Order XXI Rule 106(3) of CPC. The court rejected the debtors' argument that the executing court lacked jurisdiction to pass ex-parte orders, holding that Order XXI Rules 23 and 105 expressly empower such orders upon non-appearance. However, the debtors retain the right to participate in future execution proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts