Muhammed vs Kattubhavan Advocate - Muhammed Rafi.A.K — 300088/2020
Case under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 21. Status: Await report. Next hearing: 09th June 2026.
EP - EXECUTION PETITION
CNR: KLPK230002752020
Next Hearing
09th June 2026
Filing Number
300088/2020
Filing Date
21-05-2020
Registration No
300088/2020
Registration Date
21-05-2020
Court
Munsiff Court , Alathur
Judge
1-Munsiff
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Muhammed
Adv. V.N.Sheeja
Respondent(s)
Kattubhavan Advocate - Muhammed Rafi.A.K
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Munsiff
Await report
Report on mediation
Report on mediation
Report on mediation
Await report
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-04-2026 | Await report |
| 30-03-2026 | Report on mediation |
| 12-03-2026 | Report on mediation |
| 28-02-2026 | Report on mediation |
| 17-02-2026 | Await report |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Execution Petition No. 88/2020 Outcome: Petition ALLOWED The Munsiff Court of Alathur permitted petitioner Muhammed to construct a granite wall on the eastern boundary of his property under court supervision via an appointed Amin (court commissioner). The court held that constructing the wall was necessary to enforce the petitioner's earlier decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against respondent Kattubavan, which restrained the respondent from obstructing the petitioner's peaceful possession and demolishing the eastern granite foundation. The court rejected the respondent's objection that no executable decree existed for wall construction, finding that prohibitory injunctions can be enforced to a practicable extent under Order XXI Rule 32(5) CPC to enable the decree holder to enjoy the fruits of the judgment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Execution Petition No. 88/2020 Outcome: Petition ALLOWED The Munsiff Court of Alathur permitted petitioner Muhammed to construct a granite wall on the eastern boundary of his property under court supervision via an appointed Amin (court commissioner). The court held that constructing the wall was necessary to enforce the petitioner's earlier decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against respondent Kattubavan, which restrained the respondent from obstructing the petitioner's peaceful possession and demolishing the eastern granite foundation. The court rejected the respondent's objection that no executable decree existed for wall construction, finding that prohibitory injunctions can be enforced to a practicable extent under Order XXI Rule 32(5) CPC to enable the decree holder to enjoy the fruits of the judgment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts