Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS.No.1954/2023

Case between Biju vs Binoj Kumar et al regarding balance court fee

Court
The Additional Munsiff (RCC)
Judge
Smt. Salini.B.
Order Date
2025-01-16
Duration
Case Code No.
1954
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Biju is the plaintiff, and Binoj Kumar and Bindulal are the defendants. The case involved a dispute over court fees, which led to the rejection of the plaint.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court rejected the plaint due to the absence of the balance court fee.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court rejected the plaint due to the absence of the balance court fee.
Key Reasoning:
The plaint was rejected due to the non-remittance of balance court fee.
Why Defendant Won:
Not available
Supporting Evidence
The plaint was rejected due to the non-remittance of balance court fee.

Judgment Evidence:

Hence plaint is rejected. Pronounced in the open court on this the 16th day of January 2025.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Biju
Party Age
42
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Binoj Kumar
Party Age
38
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Bindulal
Party Age
35
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.Gopakumar.S.S
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri Shaji.S
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri.P.Santhosh Kumar
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Smt. D.Supriya
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri.Atheeth
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. Akash.S
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Smt Gayathri.S
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Smt. Vaishnavi.R
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Rejected
Description:
Plaint rejected due to non-remittance of Balance Court Fee.
Evidence:
No Balance Court Fee seen remitted. Hence plaint is rejected.

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
2023

Quick Facts

Location
Thiruvananthapuram
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Wed, 01/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Fri, 01/31/2025 - 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