Case Summary
The petitioner is M/s Ambikas seeking to restore a suit that was rejected for non-payment of court fee. The respondent is M/s Harikrishnans, who opposed the petition.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Restoration Petition
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the petition for restoration as it lacked power to restore a suit dismissed for non-payment of court fee.
Key Reasoning:
The court determined it had no authority to restore the suit given the circumstances of its rejection.
The court determined it had no authority to restore the suit given the circumstances of its rejection.
Why Defendant Won:
The court determined it had no authority to restore the suit given the circumstances of its rejection.
The court determined it had no authority to restore the suit given the circumstances of its rejection.
Supporting Evidence
The remedy for the plaintiff in such situations is different and not one under Order 9 Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure.
Judgment Evidence:
Hence, for the said reasons, The petition is dismissed.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- M/s Ambikas
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- M/s Harikrishnans
- Relation
- Represented by
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Pradeesh Chacko
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Rejected
Description:
The petition is dismissed.
Evidence:
However, it is to be seen that the order dated 23.09.2023 was not one of dismissing the suit for default, but rejecting the plaint for non-payment of court-fee.
Documents & Evidence
Case Classification
Case Type
Restoration Petition
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between M/s Ambikas vs M/s Harikrishnans regarding restoration of suit
Case Code Year
Case between M/s Ambikas vs M/s Harikrishnans regarding restoration of suit