Jayapaash K S vs Raghavan V P — 300127/2024
Case under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section section26, Order 7, rule1. Status: BCF and steps. Next hearing: 06th July 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLML230002302024
Next Hearing
06th July 2026
e-Filing Number
28-06-2024
Filing Number
248/2024
Filing Date
28-06-2024
Registration No
300127/2024
Registration Date
28-06-2024
Court
Munsiff Court, Ponnani
Judge
1-Munsiff-Magistrate
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Jayapaash K S
Adv. ANUROOPA T C
Respondent(s)
Raghavan V P
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Munsiff-Magistrate
BCF and steps
For reports
For reports
BCF and steps
Issues
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 30-03-2026 | BCF and steps | |
| 09-03-2026 | For reports | |
| 17-02-2026 | For reports | |
| 09-12-2025 | BCF and steps | |
| 06-10-2025 | Issues |
Interim Orders
SUMMARY The Munsiff-Magistrate of Ponnani allowed the interlocutory application filed by the defendant Raghavan V.P., lifting the attachment on his property and substituting it with his brother-in-law's garden land (Document No. 1680 of 2014), valued at ₹12,80,000, which adequately secures the plaintiff's claim of ₹8,00,000. The court accepted the brother-in-law's sworn affidavit consenting to the attachment and waiving future objections, finding the substitution appropriate given the defendant's compelling need to sell his property for his daughter's marriage. The petitioner was ordered to bear the costs of the application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
SUMMARY The Munsiff-Magistrate of Ponnani allowed the interlocutory application filed by the defendant Raghavan V.P., lifting the attachment on his property and substituting it with his brother-in-law's garden land (Document No. 1680 of 2014), valued at ₹12,80,000, which adequately secures the plaintiff's claim of ₹8,00,000. The court accepted the brother-in-law's sworn affidavit consenting to the attachment and waiving future objections, finding the substitution appropriate given the defendant's compelling need to sell his property for his daughter's marriage. The petitioner was ordered to bear the costs of the application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts