O.S. No. 435 /2015

Case between K A Gilson et al vs Dr. Saraumma @ Nedungattukudy Saidaly Saraumma regarding realization of money

Court

IN THE COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM

Judge

Smt. Needi.K.Dinamany

Order Date

2025-03-21

Duration

approximately-9 years 6 months

Case Closed

Fri, 03/21/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

This case involves K A Gilson and M T Manikandan, who are claiming a retention payment from Dr. Saraumma regarding a construction project that was not completed as per the agreement. The plaintiffs allege that the defendant has failed to pay them the agreed retention amount of Rs.6,85,333.29/-.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won

Interim Order

The court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs as they failed to prove their case, particularly regarding the payment of the retention amount. The court found that the plaintiffs did not complete the construction work as agreed.

Judgment Favored

Defendant

Relief Granted

Case Type

Civil Suit

Final Judgment

Key Reasoning:
The plaintiffs failed to prove that they completed their work adequately and did not rectify the defects within the specified time frame.

Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiffs failed to prove that they completed their work adequately and did not rectify the defects within the specified time frame.

Supporting Evidence

The court is satisfied that plaintiffs have failed to prove their case regarding the retention amount and adherence to the completion timelines.

Judgment Evidence:

Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: K A Gilson
Party Age: 51

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: M T Manikandan
Party Age: 49
Relation: S/o

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Dr. Saraumma @ Nedungattukudy Saidaly Saraumma
Party Age: 55
Relation: W/o

Plaintiffs Documents

Original letter with notarized affidavit, True copy of Power of attorney, True copy of Power of attorney, True copy of agreement, The office original copy of letter, The letter acknowledging the retention amount, Agreement

Defendants Documents

The copy of work order issued by the defendant to plaintiff, Copy of agreement between the defendant and M/s Buildtech, Copy of agreement, Report of Chartered engineer George F Chethalan, Report of Chartered engineer George F Chethalan, Consolidated statement of work and cost furnished by Ajithkumar T S, Emails sent by the defendant to M/s Buildtech, Certified copy of commission report in OS 880/2009 before Sub Court, Kochi, Copy of report submitted by Structural Engineer Suresh S M, Inspection report

Advocates

Party Role: Plaintiff
Advocate Name: Praveen K Joy
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: C N Sreekumar
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: Sabu P Joseph
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: Aswini G
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: Anil Prasad
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Recovery

Outcome: Refused

Description:

The plaintiff sought recovery of the retention amount withheld by the defendant.

Evidence:

Thus court is satisfied that plaintiffs have failed to prove their case. Hence suit is liable to be dismissed.

Relief Type: Costs

Outcome: Granted

Description:

The court was requested to award costs as the suit is dismissed.

Evidence:

Also court does not find any reason for not awarding costs.