Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS.No.1520 /2024

Case between C. N. Ayyappan et al vs Babu et al regarding rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Court
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Judge
Sri. Mithun Gopi.G.S
Order Date
2025-03-05
Duration
Case Code No.
1520
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiffs, led by C. N. Ayyappan, filed a suit against the defendants, Babu and others. The court ultimately rejected the plaint due to the absence of a balance court fee and no application being filed.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court dismissed the plaint due to the failure to remit the balance court fee and the absence of any filed application.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the plaint due to the failure to remit the balance court fee and the absence of any filed application.
Key Reasoning:
The plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure due to procedural deficiencies.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure due to procedural deficiencies.
Supporting Evidence
The court found no balance court fee remitted and no application filed.

Judgment Evidence:

Hence, the plaint rejected under Order VII Rule 11(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
C. N. Ayyappan
Party Age
74
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Anitha B. L
Party Age
40
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Ajitha. B.L
Party Age
39
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Rathi Chandran
Party Age
70
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Mohanan
Party Age
65
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Babu
Party Age
72
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Anitha
Party Age
52
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Anjana
Party Age
24
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Nandana
Party Age
20
Relation
D/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. K.S. Gopinathan Nair
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. Biju P.S
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Rejected
Description:
The plaint was rejected for not remitting the balance court fee.
Evidence:
the plaint rejected under Order VII Rule 11(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

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
2024

Quick Facts

Location
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Sat, 03/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Mon, 03/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
80%

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