Case Summary
Gopinadhan filed a suit against the State of Kerla and other defendants. The court dismissed the suit as the plaintiff and defendants were absent.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit was dismissed due to the absence of both the plaintiff and defendants.
Key Reasoning:
Plaintiff was absent and not represented in court.
Plaintiff was absent and not represented in court.
Why Defendant Won:
Plaintiff was absent and not represented in court.
Plaintiff was absent and not represented in court.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiff absent. Not represented. Defendant absent. Not represented.
Judgment Evidence:
Hence, suit is dismissed for default.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Gopinadhan
- Party Age
- 69
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- State of Kerla
- Relation
- Represented by
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- The Tahsildar (L.R)
- Relation
- Represented by
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Asst. Executive Engineer, P.W.D
- Relation
- Represented by
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Suresh B.S
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Malini Rao
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- T.P.Ramesh
- Appearance Type
- Government Pleader
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Dismissed
Description:
Suit is dismissed for default.
Evidence:
Hence, suit is dismissed for default.
Documents & Evidence
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Gopinadhan vs State of Kerla et al regarding dismissal for default
Case Code Year
Case between Gopinadhan vs State of Kerla et al regarding dismissal for default