Case Summary
One petitioner filed an interlocutory application against two respondents for default representation resulting in dismissal of the petition.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Not Decided
Case Type
Interlocutory Application in Original Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the petition filed under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC due to lack of representation for the petitioner.
Key Reasoning:
Reason not clearly mentioned
Reason not clearly mentioned
Why Defendant Won:
Reason not clearly mentioned
Reason not clearly mentioned
Supporting Evidence
Judgment Evidence:
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Kuttikrishnan
- Party Age
- 63
- Relation
- S/o. Mecheri Appukkuttan
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Prajitha
- Party Age
- 37
- Relation
- D/o. Kadalikkattil Subrahmanian
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Kadalikkattil Subrahmanian
- Party Age
- 62
- Relation
- S/o Appukkuttan
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri.P. Rajesh
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. M. K. Moosakutty
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Not Decided
Outcome:
Not Decided
Description:
Representation for petitioner
Evidence:
Documents & Evidence
Case Classification
Case Type
Interlocutory Application in Original Suit
Category
Agreements and Documents
District
Malappuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Tirur / Rent Control Court
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Kuttikrishnan vs Prajitha et al regarding default of representation
Case Code Year
Case between Kuttikrishnan vs Prajitha et al regarding default of representation