P. Rajendran vs A. Nazar — 100091/2016
Case under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 26. Status: FOR HEARING. Next hearing: 08th June 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLKM130001252016
Next Hearing
08th June 2026
Filing Number
100116/2016
Filing Date
22-02-2016
Registration No
100091/2016
Registration Date
22-02-2016
Court
Munsiff Court, Punalur
Judge
1-Munsiff, Punalur
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
P. Rajendran
Adv. G. Sudhakaran
Sreekala Rajendran
Adv. S S Binu
Akhila Raj
Adv. S S Binu
Kiran Raj
Adv. S S Binu
Respondent(s)
A. Nazar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Munsiff, Punalur
FOR HEARING
FOR HEARING
FOR HEARING
FOR HEARING
Further evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 04-06-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 29-05-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 04-04-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 24-03-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 19-03-2026 | Further evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary of Case 100091/2016 Outcome: Application ALLOWED. The attachment over the mortgaged property is hereby VACATED, with intimation to be issued to the Sub-Registrar. Key Facts: Kerala Gramin Bank sought to lift an attachment placed on a property mortgaged to it as collateral security for loans. The 2nd respondent (A. Nazar) had created an equitable mortgage on the property in 2010 and later availed additional loans in 2013. After the 2nd respondent defaulted on repayment from 2014 onwards, the bank initiated debt recovery proceedings. However, the 1st respondent (P. Rajendran) obtained a court attachment on the same property in March 2016—years after the bank's mortgage was created. The court found that since the bank held a first charge over the property from 2010, the subsequent attachment in 2016 could not supersede the bank's prior rights, and therefore vacated the attachment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Case 100091/2016 Outcome: Application ALLOWED. The attachment over the mortgaged property is hereby VACATED, with intimation to be issued to the Sub-Registrar. Key Facts: Kerala Gramin Bank sought to lift an attachment placed on a property mortgaged to it as collateral security for loans. The 2nd respondent (A. Nazar) had created an equitable mortgage on the property in 2010 and later availed additional loans in 2013. After the 2nd respondent defaulted on repayment from 2014 onwards, the bank initiated debt recovery proceedings. However, the 1st respondent (P. Rajendran) obtained a court attachment on the same property in March 2016—years after the bank's mortgage was created. The court found that since the bank held a first charge over the property from 2010, the subsequent attachment in 2016 could not supersede the bank's prior rights, and therefore vacated the attachment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts