Case Summary
The case involves a restoration petition filed by the defendants against an ex-parte decree. The petitioner was absent during the hearing, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Restoration Petition
Final Judgment
No
The restoration petition filed by the defendants was dismissed due to their absence in court.
Key Reasoning:
Petitioner absent and not represented.
Petitioner absent and not represented.
Why Defendant Won:
Petitioner absent and not represented.
Petitioner absent and not represented.
Supporting Evidence
Petitioner absent. Not represented. Not press memo seen filed by the counsel for the petitioner.
Judgment Evidence:
Hence, petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Geetha Udayan
- Party Age
- 66
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- M/s. Sakthi Finance Ltd.
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Manager, Sakthi Finance Ltd
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Joseph John P J
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Krusch P A
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- P A Abhilash
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Dismissed
Description:
Requested to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 30/09/2023
Evidence:
Hence, petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Documents & Evidence
Case Classification
Case Type
Restoration Petition
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Geetha Udayan vs M/s. Sakthi Finance Ltd. regarding Restoration Petition
Case Code Year
Case between Geetha Udayan vs M/s. Sakthi Finance Ltd. regarding Restoration Petition