Case Summary
E. K. Prabhakaran is the petitioner seeking to summon witnesses for a civil case. The respondents consist of several individuals related to AYISHA AMMAD, who have raised objections regarding the summoning of certain witnesses.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Summons issued to the 2nd witness
Case Type
Civil Case
Final Judgment
No
The petition to summon witnesses was partially allowed. The court found no necessity to summon the first witness but permitted the summoning of a second witness.
Why Plaintiff Won:
Petitioner complied with the necessary requirements for summoning the second witness.
Petitioner complied with the necessary requirements for summoning the second witness.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Petitioner complied with the necessary requirements for summoning the second witness.
Petitioner complied with the necessary requirements for summoning the second witness.
Supporting Evidence
The court has gone through the petition and counter. The reason to summon the 1st witness is not stated.
Judgment Evidence:
Therefore the petitioner has not complied the essential requirement under order 16 Rule 2(2) of Civil Procedure Code. The respondents has no objection in summoning the 2nd witness in the petition. Therefore, the petition is allowed in part and issue summons to the 2nd witness in the witness list alone.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- E. K. PRABHAKARAN
- Party Age
- 59
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- AYISHA AMMAD
- Party Age
- 64
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- JALEEL
- Party Age
- 46
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- THAMEEM
- Party Age
- 44
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- SUMAYYA
- Party Age
- 41
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- NAUSHAD
- Party Age
- 40
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Petitioner
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Krishna Kumar. K
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Petitioner
- Advocate Name
- Sri. A Santhosh
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Respondent
- Advocate Name
- Sri. C. Subramanian
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Respondent
- Advocate Name
- Sri. V. P. Anoop
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Respondent
- Advocate Name
- Sri. P. M. Previn
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Respondent
- Advocate Name
- Smt. Anju. M. P
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Respondent
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Abdul Raoof
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Partly Granted
Description:
Summons to the 2nd witness allowed.
Evidence:
Therefore, the petitioner has not complied the essential requirement under order 16 Rule 2(2) of Civil Procedure Code. The respondents has no objection in summoning the 2nd witness in the petition. Therefore, the petition is allowed in part and issue summons to the 2nd witness in the witness list alone.
Documents & Evidence
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Case
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Nadapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between E. K. PRABHAKARAN vs AYISHA AMMAD et al regarding witness summons
Case Code Year
Case between E. K. PRABHAKARAN vs AYISHA AMMAD et al regarding witness summons