Case Summary
The petitioners, Aravindakshan and his son Akhil Aravindan, filed a review petition to challenge an exparte decree granted against the defendants. The suit sought to recover a total amount of Rs.8,38,660/- with interest from the defendants who are the legal heirs of Anilkumar.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the review petition filed by the plaintiffs. It was concluded that the earlier exparte decree was not erroneous.
Key Reasoning:
The court found no error on the face of the record that would justify review of the exparte decree.
The court found no error on the face of the record that would justify review of the exparte decree.
Why Defendant Won:
The court found no error on the face of the record that would justify review of the exparte decree.
The court found no error on the face of the record that would justify review of the exparte decree.
Supporting Evidence
Since Anilkumar- who had directly engaged in the financial transactions with the plaintiffs had committed personal harm incident, and as his wife and daughter (the defendants) had no direct involvement in those dealings, this fact was duly considered in arriving the following decision that on considering the facts and circumstances of this case, both the parties shall suffer their respective costs.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Aravindakshan
- Party Age
- 63
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Akhil Aravindan
- Party Age
- 42
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- National Investment (Bankers)
- Relation
- Represented by
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Nirmala Devi
- Party Age
- 56
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Minthu
- Party Age
- 28
- Relation
- D/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- K.Dharmarajan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Recovery
Outcome:
Rejected
Description:
The petitioner filed a petition to review the order and restore the suit.
Evidence:
Therefore the present application is only liable to be dismissed and I do so.
Documents & Evidence
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kollam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Kollam
Common Reasons
Recovery of money
Case Code
Case between Aravindakshan et al vs National Investment (Bankers) et al regarding review of exparte decree.
Case Code Year
Case between Aravindakshan et al vs National Investment (Bankers) et al regarding review of exparte decree.