Ponnusamy K vs Bakkiyalakshmi — 5/2025
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section Order 21 rule II (2) and section 151. Disposed: Uncontested--Terminated on 10th April 2026.
EP - Execution Petition
CNR: TNED020007192024
e-Filing Number
27-06-2024
Filing Number
715/2024
Filing Date
22-07-2024
Registration No
5/2025
Registration Date
06-02-2025
Court
Principal Sub Court, Erode
Judge
5-I Additional Subordinate Judge
Decision Date
10th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Terminated
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ponnusamy K
Adv. Mohanraj K
Respondent(s)
Bakkiyalakshmi
Hearing History
Judge: 5-I Additional Subordinate Judge
Disposed
Sale Paper Submitted/ Returned
Sale Paper Submitted/ Returned
Sale Paper Submitted/ Returned
Sale Paper Submitted/ Returned
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | Sale Paper Submitted/ Returned | |
| 06-03-2026 | Sale Paper Submitted/ Returned | |
| 26-02-2026 | Sale Paper Submitted/ Returned | |
| 17-02-2026 | Sale Paper Submitted/ Returned |
Interim Orders
Summary: The I Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode, allowed K. Ponnusamy's petition for sale of mortgaged property against judgment debtor Bakkiyalakshmi under Order 21 Rule 11(2) CPC. The court found that despite obtaining preliminary and final decrees (dated 15.7.2019 and 9.9.2022 respectively), the respondent has evaded payment of the decretal amount and provided no valid reasons—her claims about property undervaluation and pending appeals lacked supporting evidence. The court ordered attachment of the mortgaged property and issuance of a sale proclamation to realize the decree amount. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The I Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode, allowed K. Ponnusamy's petition for sale of mortgaged property against judgment debtor Bakkiyalakshmi under Order 21 Rule 11(2) CPC. The court found that despite obtaining preliminary and final decrees (dated 15.7.2019 and 9.9.2022 respectively), the respondent has evaded payment of the decretal amount and provided no valid reasons—her claims about property undervaluation and pending appeals lacked supporting evidence. The court ordered attachment of the mortgaged property and issuance of a sale proclamation to realize the decree amount. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts