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
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit and counterclaim were dismissed by the court.
Key Reasoning:
The court found the claim of the Plaintiff unsupported and barred by limitation.
The court found the claim of the Plaintiff unsupported and barred by limitation.
Why Defendant Won:
Not available
Not available
Supporting Evidence
The total value of works undertaken by the plaintiff as estimated by the expert is Rs. 23,58,000. No amount is pending to be paid to the plaintiff from the defendants.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit and the counter claim are dismissed.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Bijo Isaac
- Party Age
- 38
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Prasanth K.V
- Party Age
- 36
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- C.M.Faisal
- Party Age
- 45
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- George V.V
- Party Age
- 48
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Biju Joseph
- Party Age
- 38
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Mathew Joseph
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Mercy John Kithu
- Relation
- W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Statement of Account issued by plaintiff dated 12.02.14, Receipt issued by Sub Inspector of Palarivattom Police station dated 03.04.24, copy of lawyer notice dated 03.04.24.
Defendants Documents
Receipts, Occupancy certificate issued by Asst. Execute Engineer dated 16.03.12, Approved plan issued by the corporation of Cochin dated 15.03.12.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Litto Palathingal
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sabu P Joseph
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Mathew Cherian
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
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)
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Bijo Isaac et al vs Mathew Joseph et al regarding recovery of money.
Case Code Year
Case between Bijo Isaac et al vs Mathew Joseph et al regarding recovery of money.