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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S.No. 1255 /2017

Case between Nicemol Nishad alias Nice Nisha vs Mohanan regarding permanent prohibitory injunction

Court
II ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Smt. Needi. K. Dinamany
Order Date
2024-08-19
Duration
approximately-7 years 5 months

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The case involves a dispute over property where the plaintiff seeks a prohibitory injunction against the defendants. The 2nd defendant has requested to reopen evidence in order to present additional information regarding the property.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The petition to reopen the evidence of the 2nd defendant has been allowed by the court. The court found that it is necessary to examine additional witnesses for a proper adjudication.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Evidence of 2nd defendant reopened on payment of Rs.500/- to respondent within 7 days.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court determined that reopening evidence is essential for a fair and effective adjudication of the case.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, 1) Petition is allowed. 2) Evidence of 2nd defendant reopened on payment of cost of Rs.500/- to respondent within 7 days.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Nicemol Nishad alias Nice Nisha (34 years years) Alappatt House, Vaikom Muhammed Basheer Road, Koonamtthai, Edappilly.P.O., Ernakulam District – 682 024

Defendants

Mohanan (65 years years) Madhukappally House, Ambalam Road, Koonamthai, Edappally – 24

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Allowed reopening of the evidence for the 2nd defendant.
Evidence:
Accordingly, I find merit in the above petition.
Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Ordered payment of costs to the respondent.
Evidence:
However, to meet the ends of justice costs has to ordered to respondent.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Exhibit
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Marked as evidence submitted by the plaintiff in support of their case.
Reference:
Exts.A1 to A6
Document Type: Advocate Commissioner Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Marked as evidence submitted by the Advocate Commissioner based on inspection.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Additional Document
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Marked as additional evidence relevant to the case.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Tue, 03/14/2017 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
75%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases