Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S.No.889/2021

Case between Abdul Aziz Anzar vs Sooraj K.E et al regarding restoration of a suit

Court
II Additional Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Judge
Smt. Needi.K. Dinamany
Order Date
2024-09-09
Duration
approximately-2 years 9 months
Case Code No.
889
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The case involves Abdul Aziz Anzar as the petitioner/defendant seeking to restore a suit that was dismissed for default. The plaintiffs, Sooraj K.E and Vandana Sooraj, contend that the applications filed are not maintainable and lack bona fides.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The petitions to set aside the ex-parte decree were dismissed due to lack of sufficient cause for the delay in filing. The petitioner failed to explain their absence adequately and demonstrated gross negligence.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Restoration Petition
Final Judgment
No
The petitions to set aside the ex-parte decree were dismissed due to lack of sufficient cause for the delay in filing. The petitioner failed to explain their absence adequately and demonstrated gross negligence.
Key Reasoning:
Reason not clearly mentioned
Why Defendant Won:
Reason not clearly mentioned
Supporting Evidence

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, Petitions are dismissed.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Sooraj K.E
Party Age
46
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Vandana Sooraj
Party Age
38
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Abdul Aziz Anzar
Party Age
23
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
K A Siyad
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sunil Nair Palakkat
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Abhilash K N
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Rithik S Anand
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Muhammed Ajeesh P M
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Petition to set aside the ex-parte decree and condone the delay in filing the petition.
Evidence:
Therefore petitions are found to be devoid of merits.

Documents & Evidence

Case Classification

Case Type
Restoration Petition
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
O.S.NO.
Case Code Year
2021

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Case Filed
Tue, 12/14/2021 - 12:00
Case Closed
From
Sun, 09/01/2024 - 12:00
To
Mon, 09/30/2024 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
85%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Devassy alias Thomas vs V P Rajamma regarding setting aside an ex-parte decree
COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Restoration Petition Plaintiff Won
Case between Santhosh et al vs Sala P Paulose regarding Restoration Petition
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Restoration Petition Plaintiff Won
Case between Ansari Abdul Kareem vs Greater Cochin Development Authority regarding restoration of suit
COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Restoration Petition Plaintiff Won
Case between Supportsages Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. vs Binu Varghese regarding restoration of suit
COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Restoration Petition Defendant Won
Case between State Bank of India vs Raj R Nath regarding restoration of ex parte decree
COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Restoration Petition Defendant Won