Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS 303/2017

Case between Johnson. P vs Sheela Sathyan et al regarding injunction

Court
THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, KOLLAM
Judge
Smt. Ragi.S
Order Date
2025-04-02
Duration
approximately-7 years 1 day
Case Code No.
303
Case Closed
Wed, 04/02/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiff, Johnson. P, is seeking an injunction against multiple defendants including Sheela Sathyan and others. The counter claim was dismissed due to the plaintiff's absence and lack of evidence.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The counter claim was dismissed for default due to the absence of the counter claim plaintiff.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The counter claim was dismissed for default due to the absence of the counter claim plaintiff.
Key Reasoning:
Why Defendant Won:
Not available
Supporting Evidence

Judgment Evidence:

As the counter claim plaintiff not ready to adduce any evidence, counter claim dismissed for default.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Johnson. P
Party Age
38
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Sheela Sathyan
Party Age
35
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Shelna
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
The Village Officer
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Emmanuel Saviour
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Aleena Vijay, Charlin
Relation
W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Aji Rajappan
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
R. Bahuleyan
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
R. Santhosh Kumar
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Injunction
Outcome: Not Decided
Description:
This suit is filed by the plaintiff under Section 26 Order 7 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for injunction.
Evidence:
This suit is filed by the plaintiff under Section 26 Order 7 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for injunction.
Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Dismissed
Description:
Counter claim dismissed for default.
Evidence:
As the counter claim plaintiff not ready to adduce any evidence, counter claim dismissed for default.

Documents & Evidence

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kollam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Kollam
Common Reasons
Case Code
OS
Case Code Year
2017

Quick Facts

Location
Kollam
District
Kollam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Kollam
Case Filed
Sun, 01/01/2017 - 12:00
Case Closed
Wed, 04/02/2025 - 12:00
From
Sat, 03/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Wed, 04/30/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
75%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Subhash Kumar vs Suresh Kumar et al regarding Declaration, Fixation of Boundary, Recovery of Possessions and Injunction
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KOLLAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Vishnu.P et al vs Beena regarding declaration, to set aside settlement deed and partition.
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KOLLAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Canara Bank vs Rajeena.M, Manaf regarding realisation of money.
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KOLLAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Krishnakumar vs Raghavan et al regarding realisation of money.
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KOLLAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Bank of India vs Shibina. S et al regarding dismissal of suit as not pressed.
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KOLLAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won