Case Summary
Petitioners sought a decree but the counsel had no instructions and the petition was dismissed as the petitioners were absent.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Unknown
Case Type
Unknown
Final Judgment
No
The petition was dismissed as the petitioners were absent.
Key Reasoning:
Reason not clearly mentioned
Reason not clearly mentioned
Why Defendant Won:
Reason not clearly mentioned
Reason not clearly mentioned
Supporting Evidence
Judgment Evidence:
Counsel for petitioner submitted that he has no instruction from his client. Name of petitioners called. They are absent. Hence the petition is dismissed.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Azhuvancheri Manapadikkal Chathappan
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Azhuvancheri Manapadikkal Ayyappankutty
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Azhuvanchery Manapadikkal Thupran
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Azhuvanchery Manapadikkal Neelakandan
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Azhuvancheri Manapadikkal Chakki
Plaintiffs Documents
Not available
Defendants Documents
Not available
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- V.Chandrasekharan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- K.Beena
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Documents & Evidence
Case Classification
Case Type
Unknown
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Malappuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Tirur / Rent Control Court
Common Reasons
Case Code
EP
Case Code Year
2011