ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 386 OF 20 16

Case between Khamarulaila et al vs Shajudheen et al regarding injunction

Court

Court of the Munsiff of Tirur

Judge

Smt. VINCY.T.V.

Order Date

2017-12-14

Duration

1 year, 11 months, 21 days

Case Closed

Thu, 12/14/2017 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Three plaintiffs filed suit seeking injunction against two defendants in the Court of the Munsiff of Tirur.

Judgment Outcome

Judgment Favored

Defendant

Relief Granted

Injunction - dismissed

Case Type

Civil Suit - Injunction

Final Judgment

The suit for injunction was dismissed with costs as the counsel for the plaintiff reported no instructions.

Key Reasoning:
Reason not clearly mentioned

Why Defendant Won:
Reason not clearly mentioned

Supporting Evidence

Judgment Evidence:

Suit for injunction. The counsel for plaintiff reported that he has no instruction from his client. Name of the plaintiff is called absent. Hence suit is dismissed with cost.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: Khamarulaila
Party Age: 48
Relation: W/o. Nalakath Parakkattil Ibrahim Kutty

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: Ramla
Party Age: 46
Relation: W/o. Kallingalakath Kadakasseri Moosa

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: Rasiya
Party Age: 42
Relation: W/o. Parappara Akbar

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Shajudheen
Relation: S/o. Kunhamu

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Noushad Babu
Party Age: 38
Relation: S/o. Saidali

Plaintiffs Documents

Not mentioned

Defendants Documents

Not mentioned

Advocates

Party Role: Plaintiff
Advocate Name: Sri. Dinesh Pookkayil
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Plaintiff
Advocate Name: Sri. P. Sreehari
Appearance Type: Assisting Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: Sri. C. Nandakumar
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Injunction

Outcome: Dismissed

Description:

Plaintiff's suit for injunction dismissed with cost.

Evidence: