Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS.No.1195/2020

Case between Lalini Prabhakaran vs Aleyamma Korith et al regarding dismissal for default.

Court
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Judge
Sri. Mithun Gopi.G.S
Order Date
2025-02-10
Duration
Case Code No.
1195
Case Closed
Mon, 02/10/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiff, Lalini Prabhakaran, was absent from court while the second defendant was present. The case was dismissed for default due to the plaintiff's absence.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court dismissed the plaintiff's case for default due to her absence. The second defendant was present during the proceedings.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the plaintiff's case for default due to her absence. The second defendant was present during the proceedings.
Key Reasoning:
The dismissal was due to the plaintiff's absence.
Why Defendant Won:
The dismissal was due to the plaintiff's absence.
Supporting Evidence
Since, the plaintiff is not present before the court to adduce evidence, the suit is dismissed for default.

Judgment Evidence:

The suit is dismissed for default. No costs.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Lalini Prabhakaran
Party Age
37
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Aleyamma Korith
Party Age
78
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Nishad
Party Age
42
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
S.P. Santhosh
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. B. Pradeep Kumar
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. Thomas A. John
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri.A.G. Girish Kumar
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Smt. Meera Mohan
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri.Kannan.G
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Smt. Veena.S
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri.Abhiraj. A.R
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri.Aravind A.R
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Dismissed
Description:
The suit was dismissed for default due to the plaintiff's absence.
Evidence:
Since, the plaintiff is not present before the court to adduce evidence, the suit is dismissed for default.

Documents & Evidence

Case Classification

Case Type
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
OS.NO.
Case Code Year
2020

Quick Facts

Location
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Case Closed
Mon, 02/10/2025 - 12:00
From
Sat, 02/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Fri, 02/28/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Purushothaman Pillay Divakaran et al vs Deepti Sivan regarding injunction
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Sreenath.S vs Thankarajan et al regarding dismissal of suit as not pressed
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Sindhu.S et al vs Lalitha et al regarding withdrawal of suit
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Vanitha Sureshbabu Thilak vs Babu Chettiyar et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Anitha Kumari.L.K et al vs Madhu.S et al regarding an ad-interim injunction.
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF- III
Injunction Plaintiff Won