Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS. No.613/2016

Case between Branch Manager, Canara Bank vs Rajeshkumar Wilfred regarding realization of money.

Court
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KOLLAM
Judge
Smt.Ragi.S.
Order Date
2025-11-21
Duration
approximately-6 years 7 days
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Branch Manager of Canara Bank filed a case against Rajeshkumar Wilfred for the realization of money. The suit was dismissed for default, prompting further petitions for restoration.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The applications for restoration and condonation of delay were dismissed by the court. The court found no sufficient reason to condone the delay of 840 days.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The applications for restoration and condonation of delay were dismissed by the court. The court found no sufficient reason to condone the delay of 840 days.
Key Reasoning:
No sufficient reason has been stated or proved to condone the long delay of 840 days in filing RP 89/2025.
Why Defendant Won:
Not available
Supporting Evidence
The delay of 840 days is not explained at all and appears to be an attempt to protract the proceedings.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, IA 01/2025 and RP 89/2025 are dismissed.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Branch Manager, Canara Bank
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Rajeshkumar Wilfred
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
I.Sowfiuar
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Francis Jude Netto
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Application for condonation of delay in filing RP 89/2025.
Evidence:
Consequently, the application for condonation of delay is devoid of merit and the delay cannot be condoned.
Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Restoration of RP 89/2025.
Evidence:
In view of my finding on point No.1, this point does not germane for consideration.

Documents & Evidence

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kollam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Kollam
Common Reasons
Non-payment of court fee
Case Code
Case between Branch Manager, Canara Bank vs Rajeshkumar Wilfred regarding realization of money.
Case Code Year
Case between Branch Manager, Canara Bank vs Rajeshkumar Wilfred regarding realization of money.

Quick Facts

Location
Kollam
District
Kollam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Kollam
Case Filed
Mon, 11/21/2016 - 12:00
Case Closed
From
Sat, 11/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Wed, 12/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
85%

Involved Entities

Bank

Similar Cases

Case between M/s. Canara Bank vs HACS Manufactures regarding realisation of amount
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KOLLAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Kundara vs Sujitha et al regarding restoration of suit
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KOLLAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between M/s. Indian Overseas Bank, Chemmakkad vs Sunil.L.S et al regarding Realisation of Money
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KOLLAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between UCO Bank vs Hussain.A et al regarding Realisation of Money.
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KOLLAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Bank of India vs Shibina. S et al regarding dismissal of suit as not pressed.
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KOLLAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won