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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
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

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
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
Key Reasoning:
Reason not clearly mentioned.

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

Plaintiffs

Areeparambil Hamza (56 years) Puthupalli amsom & Post, Kalavoor desom, Pin: 676 102 Sulaikha (51 years) Puthupalli amsom, Kooloor desom, Tirur Taluk Hairuneesa (34 years) Puthupalli amsom, Kooloor desom, Tirur Taluk Aneesha (33 years) Puthupalli amsom, Kooloor desom, Tirur Taluk Ayisha (32 years) Puthupalli amsom, Kooloor desom, Tirur Taluk Muhammed Anwar (30 years) Puthupalli amsom, Kooloor desom, Tirur Taluk

Defendants

Ramadas.P.V (Not mentioned years) Pandaravalappil House, Ezhuvathiruthi, Ponnani Post, Pin: 679 583

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

Quick Facts

Location
Tirur
Case Filed
Thu, 10/10/2013 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases