Skip to main content
Niyamam AI- Beta Niyamam AI- Beta

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S. No. 682/2025

Case between Elizabath Bivera vs Athira Gold and Silks et al regarding security for execution of decree.

Court
COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Sri. Nanda Krishna M
Order Date
2025-11-07
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Elizabath Bivera is the plaintiff in this case against Athira Gold and Silks and its partners. The petition concerns an attempt to secure property to prevent its disposal before a possible decree.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court has directed the respondent to furnish security and has ordered an ad-interim attachment of the property in question.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Ad-interim attachment of the property.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court found that the respondent was attempting to dispose of the attachment schedule property to defeat a potential decree.

Judgment Evidence:

Heard the petitioner. Perused the records. I am prima facie satisfied that the respondent with the intent to defeat the execution of decree that may be passed against him is trying to dispose of the attachment schedule property.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Elizabath Bivera (68 years) Nirakkachery House, Kattiparambu, N J Hall, Kannamaly P O, Ernakulam District, Pin 682 008

Defendants

Athira Gold and Silks (Age not specified years) Stella Maris Tower, Banerji Road, High Court Junction, Ernakulam, Pin - 682 031 Antony R J (58 years) Randuthaikkal House, Pallipuram P O Ernakulam, Pin 683 515 Joseph R J (56 years) Randuthaikkal House, Pallipuram P O Ernakulam, Pin 683 515 Johnson R J (54 years) Randuthaikkal House, Pallipuram P O, Ernakulam, Pin 683 515 Joby R J (52 years) Randuthaikkal House, Pallipuram P O Ernakulam, Pin 683 515

Reliefs

Relief Type: Interim Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Ad-interim attachment of attachment schedule property.
Evidence:
Hence the respondent is directed to furnish security to the tune of 1,57,400/- on or before 19.11.2025 or show cause why he should not furnish security. Meanwhile, there will be an ad-interim attachment of attachment schedule property.

Documents & Evidence

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam District
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
80%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases