The Kadavoor Service Co OpBank Ltd No E 1882 vs Chikku Sunil Advocate - ADV. JIJO — 300192/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section order21. Status: With connected case. Next hearing: 10th April 2026.
EP - EXECUTION PETITION
CNR: KLER760003582024
Next Hearing
10th April 2026
e-Filing Number
04-08-2024
Filing Number
300389/2024
Filing Date
06-08-2024
Registration No
300192/2024
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
Summary: The petition filed by judgment debtors to set aside an ex-parte order dated 15.11.2024 has been dismissed as not maintainable. The court held that the 30-day limitation period under CPC Order XXI Rule 106(3) applied to the petition, and since it was filed on 30.07.2025—well after the 30-day deadline—it was barred by limitation. The court rejected the debtors' argument that the executing court lacked jurisdiction to set them ex-parte, holding that Order XXI Rules 23 and 105 statutorily empower the court to do so upon non-appearance. However, the judgment debtors retain the right to participate in further execution proceedings upon receiving proper notice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The petition filed by judgment debtors to set aside an ex-parte order dated 15.11.2024 has been dismissed as not maintainable. The court held that the 30-day limitation period under CPC Order XXI Rule 106(3) applied to the petition, and since it was filed on 30.07.2025—well after the 30-day deadline—it was barred by limitation. The court rejected the debtors' argument that the executing court lacked jurisdiction to set them ex-parte, holding that Order XXI Rules 23 and 105 statutorily empower the court to do so upon non-appearance. However, the judgment debtors retain the right to participate in further execution proceedings upon receiving proper notice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts