Sulthan Bathery Co-op Society Secretary vs Chandran K C — 200082/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O21R64,66. Status: For counter. Next hearing: 03rd June 2026.
EP - EXECUTION PETITION
CNR: KLWD080002622023
Filing Number
200283/2023
Filing Date
22-Jun-2023
Registration No
200082/2023
Registration Date
22-Jun-2023
Court
Munsiff Magistrate court/Rent Control Appellate Authority, Sulthanbathery
Judge
1-Munsiff-Magistrate
Last updated 20-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Sulthan Bathery Co-op Society Secretary
Adv. BABU MATHEW
Respondent(s)
-
1.Chandran K C
Case History
-
03-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
31-Mar-2026
For counter
Munsiff-Magistrate
-
09-Mar-2026
For counter
Munsiff-Magistrate
-
10-Feb-2026
Repeat Notice
Munsiff-Magistrate
-
19-Jan-2026
Issue notice
Munsiff-Magistrate
-
19-Jan-2026
Disposed
Munsiff-Magistrate
-
18-Dec-2024
OrderView PDF
Summary: Execution Petition No. 82/2023 filed by Service Co-operative Bank, Sulthanbathery against judgment debtor Chandran.K.C was dismissed for default on 18th December 2024. The court found that despite multiple opportunities, the decree holder failed to pay the required fee (batta) for issuing Rule 66 notice against the judgment debtor, demonstrating lack of interest in pursuing the execution petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
18-Dec-2024
—
Munsiff-Magistrate
-
28-Oct-2024
Repeat Notice
Munsiff-Magistrate
-
25-Sep-2024
Repeat Notice
Munsiff-Magistrate
-
30-Jul-2024
Issue notice
Munsiff-Magistrate
-
24-Jun-2024
Issue notice
Munsiff-Magistrate
-
11-Mar-2024
return of notice
Munsiff-Magistrate
-
11-Oct-2023
return of notice
Munsiff-Magistrate
-
25-Jul-2023
return of notice
Munsiff-Magistrate
-
22-Jun-2023
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
22-Jun-2023
Case filed
Registration No. 200082/2023
Summary: Execution Petition No. 82/2023 filed by Service Co-operative Bank, Sulthanbathery against judgment debtor Chandran.K.C was dismissed for default on 18th December 2024. The court found that despite multiple opportunities, the decree holder failed to pay the required fee (batta) for issuing Rule 66 notice against the judgment debtor, demonstrating lack of interest in pursuing the execution petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts