K.N.Mohanan vs Karunakaran Nair — 100004/2023

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section S.21O10,11,R32. Status: Stayed Call On. Next hearing: 06th July 2026.

EP - EXECUTION PETITION

CNR: KLKT150000432023

Stayed Call On

Next Hearing

06th July 2026

Filing Number

100040/2023

Filing Date

01-02-2023

Registration No

100004/2023

Registration Date

01-02-2023

Court

Munsiff Court, Ettumanoor

Judge

1-MUNSIFF, ETTUMANOOR

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Section S.21O10,11,R32
IA/9/2025 Classification : Section Karunakaran Nair
IA/10/2025 Classification : Section K.N.MohananKarunakaran Nair

Petitioner(s)

K.N.Mohanan

Adv. K.Vinodkumar

Sajikumar

Adv. K.Vinodkumar

Respondent(s)

Karunakaran Nair

Mahesh

Adv. JOSSY BASTIAN

Leela

Sivadas

Mahesh

Hearing History

Judge: 1-MUNSIFF, ETTUMANOOR

26-05-2026

Stayed Call On

16-03-2026

Stayed Call On

27-02-2026

Stayed Call On

14-01-2026

Stayed Call On

26-11-2025

Stayed Call On

Interim Orders

14-07-2025
Order

Case Summary: 100004/2023 Outcome: Application dismissed. Leela (additional third judgment debtor) filed an application challenging the maintainability of an execution petition in a property dispute case. She claimed ownership of item no.3 property via gift deed and contended that item no.5 pathway does not pass through her property, arguing the execution proceedings were invalid since she was not a party to the original ex-parte decree. The court dismissed her application, holding that the execution court cannot go beyond the decree's scope and her contentions should be raised through an appeal against the ex-parte decree (already pending as E.A 5/24). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 100004/2023 Outcome: Application dismissed. Leela (additional third judgment debtor) filed an application challenging the maintainability of an execution petition in a property dispute case. She claimed ownership of item no.3 property via gift deed and contended that item no.5 pathway does not pass through her property, arguing the execution proceedings were invalid since she was not a party to the original ex-parte decree. The court dismissed her application, holding that the execution court cannot go beyond the decree's scope and her contentions should be raised through an appeal against the ex-parte decree (already pending as E.A 5/24). 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, Ettumanoor All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case