Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 138 OF 20 13

Case between Areeparambil Hamza et al vs Ramadas.P.V regarding boundary fixation

Court
Court of the Munsiff of Tirur
Judge
Smt. Vincy.T.V.
Order Date
2017-10-10
Duration
4 years
Case Closed
Tue, 10/10/2017 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The suit for boundary fixation was dismissed as the plaintiff's counsel had no instruction from the client and the plaintiff was absent during the hearing.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The suit for boundary fixation was dismissed due to the absence of the plaintiff and the plaintiff's counsel having no instructions.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Not Decided
Case Type
Civil Suit - Boundary fixation
Final Judgment
No
The suit for boundary fixation was dismissed due to the absence of the plaintiff and the plaintiff's counsel having no instructions.
Key Reasoning:
Reason not clearly mentioned.
Why Defendant Won:
Reason not clearly mentioned.
Supporting Evidence

Judgment Evidence:

Suit for boundary fixation. The counsel for plaintiff reported that he has no instruction from his client. The name of the plaintiff called absent. Hence suit is dismissed.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Areeparambil Hamza
Party Age
56
Relation
S/o.
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Sulaikha
Party Age
51
Relation
W/o.
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Hairuneesa
Party Age
34
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Aneesha
Party Age
33
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Ayisha
Party Age
32
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Muhammed Anwar
Party Age
30
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Ramadas.P.V
Relation
S/o.
Plaintiffs Documents
Not mentioned
Defendants Documents
Not mentioned

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. V. Chandrasekharan
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. Vipin Chandrasekhar
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. M.K.Moosakutty
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Boundary Fixation
Outcome: Not Decided
Description:
The suit for boundary fixation was dismissed.
Evidence:
The counsel for plaintiff reported that he has no instruction from his client. The name of the plaintiff called absent. Hence suit is dismissed.

Documents & Evidence

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit - Boundary Fixation
Category
Injunction and Access Rights
District
Malappuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Tirur / Rent Control Court
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Areeparambil Hamza et al vs Ramadas.P.V regarding boundary fixation
Case Code Year
Case between Areeparambil Hamza et al vs Ramadas.P.V regarding boundary fixation

Quick Facts

Location
Tirur
District
Malappuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Tirur / Rent Control Court
Case Filed
Thu, 10/10/2013 - 12:00
Case Closed
Tue, 10/10/2017 - 12:00
From
Sun, 10/01/2017 - 12:00
To
Tue, 10/31/2017 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases

Case between Machincheri Nafeesa et al vs Machincheri Hamza et al regarding boundary fixation
Court of the Munsiff of Tirur
Civil Suit - Boundary Fixation Defendant Won
Case between Cholakkal Pathumma Umma et al vs Erukattil Narayanan et al regarding boundary fixation
Court of the Munsiff of Tirur
Civil Suit - Boundary Fixation Plaintiff Won
Case between Makkutty et al vs Vattaparambil Kunhikitta et al regarding boundary fixation
Court of the Munsiff of Tirur
Civil Suit - Boundary Fixation Plaintiff Won
Case between Vazhamthodi Saidalavi vs Thekkethil Marakkar et al regarding fixation of boundary
Court of the Munsiff of Tirur
Civil Suit - Boundary Fixation Plaintiff Won
Case between Abdul Rasakh vs Muhammed Abdu rehman regarding boundary fixation
Court of the Munsiff of Tirur
Civil Suit - Boundary Fixation Dismissed