Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS No. 166/2018

Case between Lalitha vs Mathew Chacko regarding setting aside an ex-parte decree

Court
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, VAIKOM
Judge
Kum. Abhinimol Rajendran
Order Date
2025-10-22
Duration
approximately-1 year 7 days
Case Closed
Wed, 10/22/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The petitioner, Mathew Chacko, requests to set aside an ex-parte decree passed against him due to his absence during a hearing caused by medical treatment. The respondent, Lalitha, contends that the petition should be dismissed as it was filed late.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The petition to set aside the ex-parte decree is allowed on the condition that the petitioner pays costs to the respondent.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Petition allowed on the condition to pay costs of Rs.1,000 to the respondent within 3 days.
Case Type
Restoration
Final Judgment
No
The petition to set aside the ex-parte decree is allowed on the condition that the petitioner pays costs to the respondent.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The petition was saved by the limitation as the absence was due to valid medical reasons.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The petition was saved by the limitation as the absence was due to valid medical reasons.
Supporting Evidence
This court finds that the absence was not with any malafide intention and therefore discretion should be exercised in favour of the petitioner.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, petition is allowed on condition to pay costs of Rs.1,000/- to the respondent within 3 days from the date of this order.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Lalitha
Party Age
63
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Mathew Chacko
Party Age
55
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
P.S.Renjith
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
N.Sreejith
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Aswathy Menon
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Petition is allowed on condition to pay costs.
Evidence:
In the result, petition is allowed on condition to pay costs of Rs.1,000/- to the respondent within 3 days from the date of this order.

Documents & Evidence

Case Classification

Case Type
Restoration
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Vaikom
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Lalitha vs Mathew Chacko regarding setting aside an ex-parte decree
Case Code Year
Case between Lalitha vs Mathew Chacko regarding setting aside an ex-parte decree

Quick Facts

Location
Vaikom
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Vaikom
Case Filed
Mon, 01/01/2018 - 12:00
Case Closed
Wed, 10/22/2025 - 12:00
From
Wed, 10/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Wed, 12/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
85%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Mr. Kannadas K. vs Bellatrix III Apartment Owners Association regarding restoration of suit
THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Restoration Defendant Won
Case between Merykutty vs James et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, VAIKOM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between George vs Mary regarding mediation settlement
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, VAIKOM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Self Employers Leasing and Finance Ltd. vs Vasundaran et al regarding Restoration Petition
The Principal Munsiff Court, Kottayam
Restoration Unknown
Case between Devaki Amma et al vs Mangatt Devaki Amma et al regarding Restor.Pt 774/2016
Munsiff Magistrate AT Tirur,Malappuram
Restoration Unknown