Case Summary
Canara Bank, represented by Joseph Paul, filed a suit against Christafar.A. The court rejected the plaint due to the non-remittance of balance court fee.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court rejected the plaint due to the plaintiff's failure to remit the balance court fee despite being granted sufficient time and opportunities.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff did not fulfill the requirement of remitting the court fee.
The plaintiff did not fulfill the requirement of remitting the court fee.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiff did not fulfill the requirement of remitting the court fee.
The plaintiff did not fulfill the requirement of remitting the court fee.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiff represented, balance court fee not yet remitted despite grant of sufficient time and opportunities.
Judgment Evidence:
Hence plaint in rejected u/o.VII Rules 11(c) of the code of Civil Procedure.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Canara Bank
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Christafar.A
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri.Sunil Aaluvilaagom
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Rejected
Description:
The plaint was rejected due to the plaintiff's failure to remit balance court fee.
Evidence:
Hence plaint in rejected u/o.VII Rules 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
Case between Canara Bank vs Christafar.A regarding balance court fee not remitted
Case Code Year
Case between Canara Bank vs Christafar.A regarding balance court fee not remitted