Case Summary
The plaintiffs, M/s. Hi Tech Diagnostic Centre, represented by Suresh Varghese, failed to present evidence in court. As a result, the court dismissed the suit for non-prosecution.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the suit as the plaintiff failed to appear and present evidence. The plaintiff indicated lack of interest in continuing with the case.
Key Reasoning:
Plaintiff failed to prosecute the case.
Plaintiff failed to prosecute the case.
Why Defendant Won:
Plaintiff failed to prosecute the case.
Plaintiff failed to prosecute the case.
Supporting Evidence
The learned counsel for plaintiff is seeking time stating plaintiff not in station.
Judgment Evidence:
Hence this court is of the view that the plaintiff is not interested to prosecute further with this case. Hence suit is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- M/s. Hi Tech Diagnostic Centre
- Relation
- represented by Managing Partner Suresh Varghese
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Vishnupriya V.
- Party Age
- 30
- Relation
- W/o.
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sajayan Rajan
- Party Age
- 36
- Relation
- Father's name not known
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Mohammed Siyad
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Ninitha T.M.
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Vidya P.M.
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Anju V.K.
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Ligemol C. John
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Gijeesh Prakash
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Manuvilsan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- K. Vidya
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sreelekshmi San Kumar
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Anju O.A.
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sarath Krishnan T.
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Dismissed
Description:
Suit dismissed for non-prosecution.
Evidence:
Hence this court is of the view that the plaintiff is not interested to prosecute further with this case. Hence suit is dismissed for non-prosecution.
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 M/s. Hi Tech Diagnostic Centre vs Vishnupriya V. et al regarding non-prosecution of suit
Case Code Year
Case between M/s. Hi Tech Diagnostic Centre vs Vishnupriya V. et al regarding non-prosecution of suit