O.S. 30/2020

Case between P K Varghese vs K X Plemina et al regarding eviction and damages

Court

Munsiff's Court, Kottayam

Judge

Indu. P. Raj

Order Date

2025-07-16

Duration

approximately-5 years 6 months

Case Code No.

Case Closed

Wed, 07/16/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

P K Varghese is the plaintiff seeking relief against K X Plemina and K M Thomas, the defendants, regarding forceful eviction from the plaint schedule property. The case revolves around a disputed rent agreement and the legitimacy of ownership.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won

Interim Order

The court dismissed the application IA 7/2024 filed by the plaintiff due to lack of merit and stated that there was no genuine issue for adjudication regarding the case.

Judgment Favored

Defendant

Relief Granted

Case Type

Civil Suit

Final Judgment

The court dismissed the application IA 7/2024 filed by the plaintiff due to lack of merit and stated that there was no genuine issue for adjudication regarding the case.

Key Reasoning:
The petition was found to be devoid of merit and was aimed at protracting the trial.

Why Defendant Won:
The petition was found to be devoid of merit and was aimed at protracting the trial.

Supporting Evidence

The contention in the petition are not genuine and is with ulterior motives to protract the trial in this case.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, IA 7/2024 is dismissed.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: P K Varghese
Party Age: 63
Relation: S/o

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: K X Plemina
Party Age: 65
Relation: W/o

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: K M Thomas
Party Age: 67

Plaintiffs Documents

Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role: Plaintiff
Advocate Name: K Santhosh Kumar
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: K Karjet
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Injunction

Outcome: Refused

Description:

Petitioner sought to permit a scientific examination of the disputed signature on the agreement for sale.

Evidence:

Hence I find that the contention in the petition are not genuine and is with ulterior motives to protract the trial in this case.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Agreement for sale

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

The court referenced the agreement for sale dated 31.12.2019 to discuss the legitimacy of the plaintiff's claim and the signatures disputed by the defendant.

Reference:

null

Case Classification