Kerala Gramin Bank, Kalady Branch (Rep.by Its Manager) vs Mohamed Kutty V K Advocate - VINUNATH P.V., JITHIN BABU V P — 300149/2023

Case under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section Section 26, Order 7, Rule 1. Status: Call with IA. Next hearing: 01st June 2026.

OS - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KLML230003972023

Call with IA

Next Hearing

01st June 2026

e-Filing Number

19-08-2023

Filing Number

427/2023

Filing Date

21-08-2023

Registration No

300149/2023

Registration Date

22-08-2023

Court

Munsiff Court, Ponnani

Judge

1-Munsiff-Magistrate

Acts & Sections

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section Section 26, Order 7, Rule 1
IA/3/2025 Classification : Petition Section Mohamed Kutty V KKerala Gramin Bank, Kalady Branch (Rep.by Its Manager)

Petitioner(s)

Kerala Gramin Bank, Kalady Branch (Rep.by Its Manager)

Adv. SURESH A

Respondent(s)

Mohamed Kutty V K Advocate - VINUNATH P.V., JITHIN BABU V P

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Munsiff-Magistrate

09-03-2026

Call with IA

12-01-2026

No sitting notified

18-11-2025

Call on

13-10-2025

Call with IA

19-08-2025

For Steps

Interim Orders

03-07-2025
Order
03-07-2025
Order

Summary: The Munsiff-Magistrate Court in Ponnani allowed Kerala Gramin Bank's interlocutory application for pre-judgment attachment of the defendant's property. The court ordered attachment of the defendant's property (described in Document No. 1710 of 1979) for ₹2,00,000, finding that the defendant attempted to dispose of assets to obstruct execution of a potential decree and failed to respond despite service of notice. The attachment order can be lifted if the defendant furnishes security of ₹2,00,000 to the court's satisfaction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Munsiff-Magistrate Court in Ponnani allowed Kerala Gramin Bank's interlocutory application for pre-judgment attachment of the defendant's property. The court ordered attachment of the defendant's property (described in Document No. 1710 of 1979) for ₹2,00,000, finding that the defendant attempted to dispose of assets to obstruct execution of a potential decree and failed to respond despite service of notice. The attachment order can be lifted if the defendant furnishes security of ₹2,00,000 to the court's satisfaction. 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, Ponnani All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case