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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S No. 1412/2015

Case between Bijo Isaac et al vs Mathew Joseph et al regarding recovery of money.

Court
I Additional Munsiff Court
Judge
Sri. Nanda Krishna M.
Order Date
2024-10-30
Duration
approximately-9 years 6 months

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The Plaintiffs, including a Civil Engineer and specialized workers, are seeking to recover unpaid dues from the Defendants, a husband and wife, for construction work completed on their residential house. The Plaintiffs have completed the work as per agreement, but the Defendants have failed to pay the outstanding balance.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The suit and counterclaim were dismissed by the court.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
The court found the claim of the Plaintiff unsupported and barred by limitation.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit and the counter claim are dismissed.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Bijo Isaac (38 years years) Thalakkottukara house, Marottichodu, Edapally P.O, Pin – 682 024, Ernakulam Prasanth K.V (36 years years) Valiparambil house, Vattekkunam, Edappally North P.O, Pin – 682 024, Ernakulam C.M.Faisal (45 years years) Kallekandathil house, Vattekkunam, Edappally North P.O, Pin – 682 024, Ernakulam George V.V (48 years years) Valiaparambil house, Maliakkapady, Kizhakkambalam P.O, Ernakulam Biju Joseph (38 years years) Kandathil house, Sahakarana road, Edappally P.O, Pin – 682 024, Ernakulam

Defendants

Mathew Joseph (null years) Kithu Veettil house, 43/1353, Vattathipadam road, Kalavathu road, Palarivattom, Pin – 682 025, Ernakulam Mercy John Kithu (null years) Kithu Veettil house, 43/1353, Vattathipadam road, Kalavathu road, Palarivattom, Pin – 682 025, Ernakulam

Reliefs

Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Rejected
Description:
Plaintiffs sought recovery of outstanding amount due from the defendants.
Evidence:
Therefore. no amount is pending to be paid the plaintiff from the defendants and thus plaintiff is not entitled to recover any amount from the defendant.
Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Not Decided
Description:
Defendants filed counterclaim for recovery of amount overpaid to the plaintiff.
Evidence:
Counter-claim is found to be barred by law of limitation.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Statement of Account
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Issued by the plaintiff outlining the balance due from the defendants.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Received from the Sub Inspector of Palarivattom Police station regarding the payment status.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Lawyer Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendants regarding the outstanding dues.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Photograph
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Photographs relating to the construction project.
Reference:
Document Type: Receipts
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Receipts for payments made by the defendants.
Reference:
Ext.B1 series
Document Type: Occupancy Certificate
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Issued to the defendants indicating legal occupancy of the constructed building.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type: Approved Plan
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Construction plan approved by the authorities.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type: Work Agreement
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Agreement between first plaintiff and second defendant for construction work.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type: Building Permit
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Permit issued for the construction of the building.
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Report filed by an advocate commissioner regarding the construction dispute.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Expert Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Valuation report by an expert engineer on the construction.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type: Rough Sketch
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Sketch related to the construction as per expert evaluation.
Reference:
Ext.C1(b)
Document Type: Photographs
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Series of photographs documenting aspects of the construction.
Reference:
Ext.C1(c)

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
80%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases