George Joseph @Varkey vs Manoj Jose — 1400174/2024

Case under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section SECTION37ANDORDERXX1RULE10AND11. Status: For commission report. Next hearing: 21st May 2026.

EP - EXECUTION PETITION

CNR: KLID140007382024

For commission report

Next Hearing

21st May 2026

e-Filing Number

21-12-2024

Filing Number

1400891/2024

Filing Date

21-12-2024

Registration No

1400174/2024

Registration Date

24-12-2024

Court

Munsiff Court Kattappana

Judge

1-Munsiff Kattappana

Acts & Sections

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section SECTION37ANDORDERXX1RULE10AND11
EA/253/2025 Classification : Direction Petition Section Manoj JoseGeorge Joseph @Varkey
EA/1/2026 Classification : Advance Application Section George Joseph @VarkeyManoj Jose
EA/2/2026 Classification : Advance Application Section Manoj JoseGeorge Joseph @Varkey
EA/3/2026 Classification : Survey Commission Application Section Manoj JoseGeorge Joseph @Varkey

Petitioner(s)

George Joseph @Varkey

Adv. K.G SHAJIMON

Respondent(s)

Manoj Jose

Manesh Jose

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Munsiff Kattappana

10-04-2026

For commission report

08-04-2026

For reports

10-03-2026

Stayed

13-02-2026

Call on

02-02-2026

For reports

Interim Orders

30-01-2026
Order

Case Summary Petition Dismissed: The Munsiff Court of Kattappana dismissed the petition filed by judgment debtors Manoj Jose and Maneesh Jose seeking to stay execution of a compromise decree. The court held that parties bound by a valid compromise decree cannot challenge its terms by citing alleged errors in revenue records, as decisions by revenue authorities are not binding on civil courts and do not affect compromises already recorded in court decrees. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

10-04-2026

Interim Order

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary Petition Dismissed: The Munsiff Court of Kattappana dismissed the petition filed by judgment debtors Manoj Jose and Maneesh Jose seeking to stay execution of a compromise decree. The court held that parties bound by a valid compromise decree cannot challenge its terms by citing alleged errors in revenue records, as decisions by revenue authorities are not binding on civil courts and do not affect compromises already recorded in court decrees. 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 Kattappana All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case