Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS.317/2020

Case between Murali vs Sabitha Ramachandran et al regarding balance court fee

Court
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, PERUMBAVOOR
Judge
Smt. Sumey Chandran
Order Date
2025-11-29
Duration
Case Code No.
317
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Murali is the plaintiff in this case against Sabitha Ramachandran and others regarding the rejection of the suit due to absence and non-remittance of court fees. The court dismissed the suit based on procedural grounds.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court rejected the suit due to the plaintiff's absence and failure to remit the balance court fee. This led to the suit being dismissed under the relevant legal provision.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court rejected the suit due to the plaintiff's absence and failure to remit the balance court fee. This led to the suit being dismissed under the relevant legal provision.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff was absent and did not remit the necessary court fees.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiff was absent and did not remit the necessary court fees.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiff was absent and did not remit the necessary court fees.

Judgment Evidence:

Since plaintiff absent, suit rejected Under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Murali
Party Age
59
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Sabitha Ramachandran
Party Age
66
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Narayanan
Party Age
90
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Binulal
Party Age
25
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Sulochana Shaji
Party Age
50
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Anju
Party Age
29
Relation
D/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
K. B. Sunilkumar
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Biju D. Nair
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Rejected
Description:
Suit rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C due to absence of the plaintiff.
Evidence:
Since plaintiff absent, suit rejected Under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C.

Documents & Evidence

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor
Common Reasons
Case Code
OS.
Case Code Year
2020

Quick Facts

Location
Perumbavoor
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Sat, 11/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Sun, 11/30/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
80%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between The Federal Bank Ltd. Keezhillam Branch vs Anagha Mariya Siby et al regarding suit dismissal
Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor
Civil Suit Dismissed
Case between Ameena Makkar et al vs Aji et al regarding Suit dismissal for default
Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Binojkumar Nair vs Jitha Gopi et al regarding Suit rejection under order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C.
The Munsiff Court of Perumbavoor
Civil Suit Dismissed
Case between Union Bank of India, Perumbavoor Branch vs Shihab K A regarding Suit not pressed
THE MUNSIFF COURT OF PERUMBAVOOR
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Prakash V vs Chummar et al regarding Suit Rejection under Order 7 Rule 11
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, PERUMBAVOOR
Civil Suit Defendant Won