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
e-Filing Number
04-08-2024
Filing Number
300389/2024
Filing Date
06-Aug-2024
Registration No
300192/2024
Registration Date
06-Aug-2024
Court
Munsiff court Kothamangalam
Judge
1-Munsiff
Last updated 27-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.The Kadavoor Service Co OpBank Ltd No E 1882
Adv. Sidharth S Nair,Gigi Peter
Respondent(s)
-
1.Chikku Sunil Advocate - ADV. JIJO
-
2.Sunil Issac
Adv. ADV. JIJO
-
3.Sophy Sunil
Adv. ADV. JIJO
Case History
-
10-Apr-2026
Next hearingPending
-
23-Mar-2026
With connected case
Munsiff
-
18-Mar-2026
With connected case
Munsiff
-
13-Mar-2026
With connected case
Munsiff
-
07-Mar-2026
With connected case
Munsiff
-
27-Feb-2026
With connected case
Munsiff
-
24-Jan-2026
With connected case
Munsiff
-
03-Jan-2026
With connected case
Munsiff
-
19-Dec-2025
With connected case
Munsiff
-
10-Dec-2025
With connected case
Munsiff
-
20-Nov-2025
With connected case
Munsiff
-
27-Oct-2025
With connected case
Munsiff
-
25-Oct-2025
With connected case
Munsiff
-
10-Oct-2025
With connected case
Munsiff
-
20-Sep-2025
With connected case
Munsiff
-
11-Sep-2025
With connected case
Munsiff
-
18-Aug-2025
OrderView PDF
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.
-
18-Aug-2025
With connected case
Munsiff
-
16-Aug-2025
Orders in IA
Munsiff
-
05-Aug-2025
Order/Judgement
Munsiff
-
31-Jul-2025
For Orders in Ea
Munsiff
-
27-Jun-2025
With connected case
Munsiff
-
26-Jun-2025
With connected case
Munsiff
-
04-Apr-2025
Call on
Munsiff
-
14-Mar-2025
For production of documents/Affidavit
Munsiff
-
27-Feb-2025
For production of documents/Affidavit
Munsiff
-
15-Nov-2024
For production of documents/Affidavit
Munsiff
-
08-Aug-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
06-Aug-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 300192/2024
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.
Explore other courts