Abdul Salam vs M A Anzar Advocate - Plakkodu B J Shibu — 100040/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26(1),&(2),7,1&2. Status: For issues. Next hearing: 08th June 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLKM270004882023
Next Hearing
08th June 2026
e-Filing Number
26-09-2023
Filing Number
100210/2023
Filing Date
27-09-2023
Registration No
100040/2023
Registration Date
27-09-2023
Court
Sub Court Karunagappally
Judge
1-Sub Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Abdul Salam
Adv. ARUN SREERAJ R
Respondent(s)
M A Anzar Advocate - Plakkodu B J Shibu
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Sub Judge
For issues
For issues
FOR HEARING
Call on
For issues
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | For issues |
| 02-03-2026 | For issues |
| 21-02-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 12-12-2025 | Call on |
| 09-10-2025 | For issues |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: IA.03/2024 in OS.40/2023 Shamna's claim petition to vacate property attachment was allowed. The court found that property titled in her name since 1992 was wrongfully attached in 2023 based on plaintiff Abdul Salam's false affidavit claiming it belonged to her husband (respondent M.A. Anzar). The attachment was vacated, and Abdul Salam was ordered to pay Shamna costs plus ₹3,000 compensatory damages under CPC Section 35A for the unwarranted attachment causing financial and temporal hardship. The court also directed income tax authorities to investigate potential Section 269ST violations related to a ₹5 lakh cash transaction mentioned in the case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: IA.03/2024 in OS.40/2023 Shamna's claim petition to vacate property attachment was allowed. The court found that property titled in her name since 1992 was wrongfully attached in 2023 based on plaintiff Abdul Salam's false affidavit claiming it belonged to her husband (respondent M.A. Anzar). The attachment was vacated, and Abdul Salam was ordered to pay Shamna costs plus ₹3,000 compensatory damages under CPC Section 35A for the unwarranted attachment causing financial and temporal hardship. The court also directed income tax authorities to investigate potential Section 269ST violations related to a ₹5 lakh cash transaction mentioned in the case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts