Skip to main content
Niyamam AI- Beta Niyamam AI- Beta

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S. No. 1248/2023

Case between M/s Canara Bank vs Sajitha Pareeth regarding court fee remittance

Court
COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Smt. Needi.K.Dinamany
Order Date
2025-10-23
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

M/s Canara Bank filed a suit against Sajitha Pareeth regarding the remittance of court fees. The plaintiff was absent during the hearing, leading to the rejection of the plaint.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court rejected the plaint due to the plaintiff's absence and failure to remit the balance court fee.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
The plaint was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure due to the absence of the plaintiff.

Judgment Evidence:

Plaintiff absent no representation. No Balance Court Fee seen remitted. Hence plaint is rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

M/s Canara Bank (Age not specified years) Kakkanad Branch, Josh Towers, Padamugal Colony Junction, Vazhakkala, Kakkanad P O, Kochi – 682 030

Defendants

Sajitha Pareeth (49 years) Vadakkakam, Thuthiyoor, Kakkanad, CSEZ P O, Kochi – 682 037, Ernakulam District

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Rejected
Description:
The plaint is rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure.
Evidence:
Plaintiff absent no representation. No Balance Court Fee seen remitted. Hence plaint is rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure.

Documents & Evidence

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
80%

Involved Entities

Bank

Similar Cases