Case Summary
Plaintiff Musthafa filed a suit for specific performance against defendant Kadeeja, seeking a court order to compel the defendant to fulfill a contractual obligation.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Not Decided
Case Type
Civil Suit - Specific Performance
Final Judgment
No
The suit was dismissed as not pressed, meaning the plaintiff did not actively pursue the claim for specific performance.
Key Reasoning:
Reason not clearly mentioned
Reason not clearly mentioned
Why Defendant Won:
Reason not clearly mentioned
Reason not clearly mentioned
Supporting Evidence
Judgment Evidence:
Suit for specific performance. Plaintiff present. Advanced as per order in IA 2336/18. Not press endorsed in plaint. Hence suit is dismissed as not pressed. (Pronounced by me in open court, this the 5ᵗʰ day of December, 2018) MUNSIFF.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Musthafa
- Party Age
- 34
- Relation
- S/o Mandayapuram Moideen kutty
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Kadeeja
- Party Age
- 51
- Relation
- W/o Moorkath Muhammedkutty
Plaintiffs Documents
Not mentioned
Defendants Documents
Not mentioned
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. K.A. Samad
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. K.V. Sabir
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. C.P. Jamshid Rahman
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Documents & Evidence
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit - Specific Performance
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Malappuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Tirur / Rent Control Court
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Musthafa vs Kadeeja regarding specific performance
Case Code Year
Case between Musthafa vs Kadeeja regarding specific performance