Case Summary
Madhu filed a restoration petition which was dismissed for default due to absence of the petitioner.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Dismissal of the restoration petition
Case Type
Restoration Petition
Final Judgment
No
The restoration petition filed by Madhu was dismissed due to his absence and lack of instructions from the client.
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
- Madhu
- Party Age
- 51
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Preethikumari
- Party Age
- 36
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Prabhakaran
- Party Age
- 43
Plaintiffs Documents
Not mentioned
Defendants Documents
Not mentioned
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- V.Chandrasekharan and Vipin Chandrasekharan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Advocate appearing for Preethikumari
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Dismissal
Outcome:
Dismissed
Description:
Dismissal of the restoration petition
Evidence:
It is submitted that petitioner has no instruction from his client. Name of the petitioner called, absent. Hence RPIA is dismissed for default.
Documents & Evidence
Case Classification
Case Type
Restoration Petition
Category
Case Restoration and Delays
District
Malappuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Tirur / Rent Control Court
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Madhu vs Preethikumari et al regarding Restoration Petition
Case Code Year
Case between Madhu vs Preethikumari et al regarding Restoration Petition