Indian Overseas Bank vs SHYLAJA T — 300064/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 151. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 13th March 2026.

Case disposed

RP - Restoration Petition.

CNR: KLTV340006492025

e-Filing Number

04-06-2025

Filing Number

823/2025

Filing Date

04-Jun-2025

Registration No

300064/2025

Registration Date

04-Jun-2025

Court

Munsiff Court Nedumangadu

Judge

2-Additional Munsiff Nedumangad

Decision Date

13-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 06-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 151

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Indian Overseas Bank

    Adv. LEENA S

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SHYLAJA T

  2. 2.HARIHARAN

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The Additional Munsiff court at Nedumangad allowed Indian Overseas Bank's Review Petition (R.P 64/2025) against respondents Shylaja T and Hariharan on 13 March 2026. Both parties were represented, costs were exchanged, and the petition was granted, though the judgment provides no details on the substantive grounds or relief awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Additional Munsiff Nedumangad

  4. 28-Feb-2026

    Payment of cost

    Additional Munsiff Nedumangad

  5. 20-Feb-2026

    Order/ Judgement

    Additional Munsiff Nedumangad

  6. 19-Feb-2026

    For Hearing

    Additional Munsiff Nedumangad

  7. 07-Jan-2026

    For Objection and hearing

    Additional Munsiff Nedumangad

  8. 27-Nov-2025

    Objection

    Additional Munsiff Nedumangad

  9. 08-Sep-2025

    For Objection and hearing

    Additional Munsiff Nedumangad

  10. 04-Jun-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  11. 04-Jun-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 300064/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The Additional Munsiff court at Nedumangad allowed Indian Overseas Bank's Review Petition (R.P 64/2025) against respondents Shylaja T and Hariharan on 13 March 2026. Both parties were represented, costs were exchanged, and the petition was granted, though the judgment provides no details on the substantive grounds or relief awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case