Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S. No. 659 /2022

Case between Mrs. Sunitha Suresh vs Vinod Marcilin et al regarding rejection of suit

Court
II ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Smt. Needi. K. Dinamany
Order Date
2024-09-27
Duration
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiff, Mrs. Sunitha Suresh, filed a suit which was heard in the court where the plaintiff was absent and not represented. The court ultimately rejected the suit due to the absence of proper court fees.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court ruled in favor of the defendants as the plaintiff was absent. The suit was rejected due to the lack of a balance court fee.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court ruled in favor of the defendants as the plaintiff was absent. The suit was rejected due to the lack of a balance court fee.
Key Reasoning:
Why Defendant Won:
Supporting Evidence
Plaintiff absent Not Represented. D2 represented. No Balance Court Fee seen paid.

Judgment Evidence:

The suit is rejected Under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Mrs. Sunitha Suresh
Party Age
49
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Vinod Marcilin
Party Age
42
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Anoop Habel
Party Age
44
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Karma News
Relation
represented by
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Mr. Vince Mathew
Relation
managing director
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Eshwar Potty
Relation
CEO
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
T T Harikumar
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Anakha Unni
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Jeo George
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Joseph Shylan T M
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Aynosh Michael P S
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Rejected
Description:
The plaint is rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Evidence:
Plaint is rejected Under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure

Documents & Evidence

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Mrs. Sunitha Suresh vs Vinod Marcilin et al regarding rejection of suit
Case Code Year
Case between Mrs. Sunitha Suresh vs Vinod Marcilin et al regarding rejection of suit

Quick Facts

Location
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Sun, 09/01/2024 - 12:00
To
Mon, 09/30/2024 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases

Case between Garden View Apartment owners Association vs Ansal River Dale owners Association et al regarding Restoration Petition
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Shanoj R vs Joseph Augustin et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between M/s Indo Quartz vs M/s Ray Engineering Pvt. Ltd. et al regarding petition under Order 38 Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure.
COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between M/s. Canton Residency Pvt. Ltd. vs Kalamassery Municipality regarding dismissal of suit
THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Mrs. Julie Sebastian vs SREECHAND SPECIALITY HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. regarding settlement of claims.
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won