Skip to main content
Niyamam AI- Beta Niyamam AI- Beta

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S No. 1122/2022

Case between Chandralekha et al vs Rugmini Ammal et al regarding Civil Suit

Court
I Additional Munsiff, Ernakulam
Judge
Sri. Padmakumar.G.
Order Date
2024-02-09
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Chandralekha and others filed a civil suit against Rugmini Ammal and others. The suit was regarding certain claims which, after hearing, the court found to be without merit.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court dismissed the suit as no court fees had been paid and earlier time had already been granted. Both parties were represented during the hearing.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:

Judgment Evidence:

Hence, suit rejected.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Chandralekha (71 years years) Rakeshnivas, Thekkumbhagam, Tripunithura P.O, Nadama, Ernakulam – 682 301 Gopalakrishnan (60 years years) C/o Jayakumari P.N, Puthenpurakkal house, Thekkumbhagam, Y.M.A road, Tripunithura P.O, Nadama, Ernakulam – 682 301 Vijayakumar (55 years years) Kunnathparambu, Tripunithura P.O, Nadama, Ernakulam – 682 301 Latheswary (54 years years) Bhagavathyparambil, Chirakkakam, varapuzha P.O, Ernakulam – 683 517 SureshBabu (50 years years) Kunnathparambu, Tripunithura P.O, Nadama, Ernakulam – 682 301

Defendants

Rugmini Ammal (66 years years) KalariMadam, Sreenivasa Kovil Road, Ward No. 32 – Thripunithura Muncipality, Tripunithura P.O, Nadama, Ernakulam – 682 301 Latha Sukumaran (65 years years) Kunnath house, Tripunithura P.O, Nadama, Ernakulam – 682 301 Sulu @ SreepriyaSukumaran (25 years years) VVRA 14, Vakkat Thundiyil, Vakkatt road, Chakkaraparambu, Vennal – 682 028 Sulith Sukumaran (22 years years) Kunnath house, Tripunithura, Tripunithura P.O, Nadama, Ernakulam – 682 301

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Rejected
Description:
The suit was rejected as no BCF was paid and earlier time had already been granted.
Evidence:
Both sides represented. No BCF paid as earlier time had already been granted. Hence, suit rejected.

Documents & Evidence

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
70%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases