Case Summary
The plaintiff, Devidas D Pisharady, is claiming an outstanding amount from the defendant, Harilal, for diesel engines purchased between 2013 and 2015. The defendant contends that the suit is barred by limitation and denies any amount being due.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit was dismissed with costs to the defendant.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff's claims were not substantiated due to lack of adequate evidence.
The plaintiff's claims were not substantiated due to lack of adequate evidence.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiff's claims were not substantiated due to lack of adequate evidence.
The plaintiff's claims were not substantiated due to lack of adequate evidence.
Supporting Evidence
The issue is found against the plaintiff as the evidence presented was inadequate to prove the outstanding amount.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Devidas D Pisharady
- Party Age
- 30
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Harilal
- Party Age
- 42
- Relation
- Proprietor
Plaintiffs Documents
Computer extract of Sales invoices, True copy of the payment made by the defendant, Office copy of the lawyer notice issued to the defendant, Postal receipt
Defendants Documents
True copy of the legal notice received by the defendant.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- N.N.Elayath
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Aneesh K.M
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Dileep Chandran
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Recovery
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiff sought recovery of an amount due from the defendant.
Evidence:
In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Computer extract of Sales invoices submitted before the sale tax department
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was used to claim the outstanding amount due from the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
True copy of the payment made by the defendant
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was intended to show the payments made by the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Office copy of the lawyer notice issued to the defendant
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was used to show the legal notice sent to the defendant regarding the outstanding amount.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Postal receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was used as evidence of the dispatch of the legal notice to the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
True copy of the legal notice received by the defendant
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document was used by the defendant to show the discrepancy in the amounts claimed.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Oral Evidence
Submitted By:
Oral evidence
Relevance:
Oral depositions were used to support the claims made by both parties.
Reference:
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Money and Loan Recovery
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Non-payment of rent
Case Code
Case between Devidas D Pisharady vs Harilal regarding money due from business transactions.
Case Code Year
Case between Devidas D Pisharady vs Harilal regarding money due from business transactions.