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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S. No.1590/2019

Case between Ayoobkhan vs Fousya H. regarding permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction

Court
THE THIRD ADDL. MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROLLER
Judge
Smt. REEJA R. NAIR
Order Date
2024-08-16
Duration
approximately-5 years 2 months

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiff, Ayoobkhan, is a household products trader who has filed a suit against Fousya H., the proprietrix of M/s. Ajmeer Enterprises, for failure to repay a significant investment and the value of supplied goods. The defendant did not appear in court, leading to an exparte decision.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The suit was dismissed due to the plaintiff not being entitled to a decree as sought for, primarily for the non-joinder of a necessary party. There is no order as to costs.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:

Judgment Evidence:

In the result:­ The suit is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Ayoobkhan (48 Years years) Fathima Manzil, 43/527, Ayyappankavu, Ernakulam North, Ernakulam-682018

Defendants

Fousya H. (33 years years) M/s. Ajmeer Enterprises, 69/502 A, Welcome Road, Ayyappankavu, Ernakulam-682018

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as sought for by the plaintiff.
Evidence:
Thus an overall consideration of all these aspects reveals only that the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree as sought for.
Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Mandatory injunction as claimed by the plaintiff.
Evidence:
Thus an overall consideration of all these aspects reveals only that the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree as sought for.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: GST Registration Certificate
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Not marked in evidence as no foundation for secondary evidence is laid down.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Income Tax Return Verification Form
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Marked subject to production of certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, but not produced.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Complaint
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
True copy of the complaint filed by the plaintiff before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, but not accepted due to lack of proof.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Lease Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Marked subject to proof but the document is not admitted into evidence.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Lease Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Marked subject to proof but the document is not admitted into evidence.
Reference:
Ext.A6

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Thu, 06/20/2019 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
70%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases