EP. No. 63/2018 in OS.No.576/2010

Case between Mary et al vs K.Rajeena et al regarding Execution Petition

Court

COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KOLLAM

Judge

Smt. Ragi.S.

Order Date

2025-03-26

Duration

Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

This case involves Decree Holder Mary and additional decree holders Neppolean, Sajan, and Marsh against Judgment Debtors K.Rajeena and Joseph regarding an execution petition. The Decree Holder was absent during the proceedings.

Judgment Outcome

Judgment Favored

Defendant

Relief Granted

Case Type

Execution Petition

Final Judgment

The court dismissed the execution petition for default due to the absence of the Decree Holder.

Key Reasoning:

Why Defendant Won:
The Decree Holder was continuously absent and there was no representation.

Supporting Evidence

Judgment Evidence:

Hence EP dismissed for default.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: Mary
Party Age: 55

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: Neppolean
Party Age: 70
Relation: Additional Decree Holder

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: Sajan
Party Age: 35
Relation: Additional Decree Holder

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: Marsh
Party Age: 33
Relation: Additional Decree Holder

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: K.Rajeena
Party Age: 70

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Joseph
Party Age: 78

Plaintiffs Documents

Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role: Plaintiff
Advocate Name: David Koshi
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Plaintiff
Advocate Name: Sri. M.I.Alexander Panicker
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: Nazeer Kakkanttayam
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other

Outcome: Dismissed

Description:

The Execution Petition is dismissed for default due to the absence of the Decree Holder.

Evidence: