Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S. No.1111/2021

Case between Baiju k vs Aparna Jayan et al regarding plaint rejection

Court
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF_I
Judge
Smt. Karthika.A.R
Order Date
2025-04-04
Duration
Case Closed
Fri, 04/04/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Baiju k filed a suit against Aparna Jayan and A Jayan regarding a matter that led to the rejection of the plaint. The court rejected the plaint due to non-payment of court fees and absence of applications for extension.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court found that the plaint was rejected due to the absence of the necessary court fee being remitted. It stated no applications for extension of time were filed.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court found that the plaint was rejected due to the absence of the necessary court fee being remitted. It stated no applications for extension of time were filed.
Key Reasoning:
Plaintiff did not fulfill procedural requirements.
Why Defendant Won:
Plaintiff did not fulfill procedural requirements.
Supporting Evidence
In spite of Last Chance granted. No Balance Court Fee seen remitted.

Judgment Evidence:

Hence plaint rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure. Pronounced in the open Court on this the 4th day of April 2025.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Baiju k
Party Age
47
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Aparna Jayan
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
A Jayan
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. K S Gopinathan Nair
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. Ashok P Nair
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Smt. Shelja
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. Muralee Radhakrishnan
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Rejected
Description:
The plaint was rejected due to lack of remitted court fee.
Evidence:
Hence plaint rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure.

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
Case between Baiju k vs Aparna Jayan et al regarding plaint rejection
Case Code Year
Case between Baiju k vs Aparna Jayan et al regarding plaint rejection

Quick Facts

Location
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Case Closed
Fri, 04/04/2025 - 12:00
From
Tue, 04/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Wed, 04/30/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
75%

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