Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS.No.1496/2017

Case between B. Geethakumary vs P.S. Sarada Amma regarding a suit

Court
The Additional Munsiff-III
Judge
Smt.Sreelakshmi. C
Order Date
2025-03-12
Duration
Case Code No.
1496
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

B. Geethakumary is the plaintiff, and P.S. Sarada Amma is the defendant. The case is about a suit that was dismissed due to the plaintiff's absence and lack of sufficient reasons to seek time for evidence.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court dismissed the suit due to the absence of the plaintiff and lack of sufficient reasons for seeking more time for evidence.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the suit due to the absence of the plaintiff and lack of sufficient reasons for seeking more time for evidence.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff was absent and did not provide sufficient reasons for seeking more time.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiff was absent and did not provide sufficient reasons for seeking more time.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiff was absent and seek time for evidence. No sufficient reasons stated.

Judgment Evidence:

Hence suit stands dismissed.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
B. Geethakumary
Party Age
54
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
P.S. Sarada Amma
Party Age
71
Relation
W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. Deepu.U.V
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. Arunjith.A.L
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.Bharath Vijay.V.G
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. N. Chandrasekharan Nair
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Dismissed
Description:
The suit stands dismissed due to the plaintiff's absence and lack of sufficient reasons stated for seeking time for evidence.
Evidence:
Hence suit stands dismissed.

Documents & Evidence

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
OS.NO.
Case Code Year
2017

Quick Facts

Location
Thiruvananthapuram
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Sat, 03/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Mon, 03/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
85%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Union Bank of India et al vs Midhun. M regarding rejection of plaint
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Purushothaman Pillay Divakaran et al vs Deepti Sivan regarding injunction
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Sreenath.S vs Thankarajan et al regarding dismissal of suit as not pressed
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Sindhu.S et al vs Lalitha et al regarding withdrawal of suit
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Vanitha Sureshbabu Thilak vs Babu Chettiyar et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won