Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 322 OF 2016

Case between Bhaskaran vs Palakkavalappil Vattaparambil Habeeburrehman regarding realization of amount

Court
Court of the Munsiff of Tirur
Judge
Smt. VINCY.T.V.
Order Date
2017-08-03
Duration
1 year
Case Closed
Thu, 08/03/2017 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Plaintiff Bhaskaran, aged 55, filed a suit against defendant Palakkavalappil Vattaparambil Habeeburrehman, aged 58, for the realization of an amount. The court rejected the plaint due to non-payment of balance court fee and lack of representation.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure due to the non-remittance of balance court fee and lack of representation for the plaintiff.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Not Decided
Case Type
Civil Suit - Suit for realization of amount
Final Judgment
No
The court rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure due to the non-remittance of balance court fee and lack of representation for the plaintiff.
Key Reasoning:
Reason not clearly mentioned
Why Defendant Won:
Reason not clearly mentioned
Supporting Evidence
Reason not clearly mentioned

Judgment Evidence:

Suit for realization of amount. No balance court fee has been remitted. No application was filed. No representation for the plaintiff. Hence plaint is rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Bhaskaran
Party Age
55
Relation
S/o. Chennan
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Palakkavalappil Vattaparambil Habeeburrehman
Party Age
58
Relation
S/o. Kunhibava Moulavi
Plaintiffs Documents
No documents mentioned
Defendants Documents
No documents mentioned

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. Dinesh Pookkayil
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
P. Sreehari
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. K. Vipin
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Unknown
Outcome: Not Decided
Description:
Realization of amount
Evidence:
Suit for realization of amount. No balance court fee has been remitted. No application was filed. No representation for the plaintiff. Hence plaint is rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Documents & Evidence

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit - Suit for realization of amount
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Malappuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Tirur / Rent Control Court
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Bhaskaran vs Palakkavalappil Vattaparambil Habeeburrehman regarding realization of amount
Case Code Year
Case between Bhaskaran vs Palakkavalappil Vattaparambil Habeeburrehman regarding realization of amount

Quick Facts

Location
Tirur
District
Malappuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Tirur / Rent Control Court
Case Filed
Wed, 08/03/2016 - 12:00
Case Closed
Thu, 08/03/2017 - 12:00
From
Tue, 08/01/2017 - 12:00
To
Thu, 08/31/2017 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
80%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases

Case between Vettikkat Parikkuzhiyil Beerali vs Thayyil Kader Haji regarding unknown matter
Munsiff Magistrate Court
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Vineeshkumar et al vs Kumaran regarding compliance with High Court directions
Court of the Munsiff Magistrate
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Vineesh Kumar et al vs Subrahmanian et al regarding failure to file affidavit
Munsiff Magistrate Court at Tirur, Malappuram
Unknown Unknown
Case between K.Muhammed Basheer vs K.Sheeba et al regarding Decree
Munsiff Magistrate Court
Civil Suit - Decree Plaintiff Won
Case between V.K.Savithry Amma vs Marakkar et al regarding unknown
Munsiff Magistrate Court
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won