Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S. No. 86/2016

Case between Prakashan vs Sree Bhagaval Sahaya Sangham et al regarding abatement of suit

Court
COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Smt. Needi.K.Dinamany
Order Date
2025-10-16
Duration
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiff, Prakashan, passed away a year prior and his legal heirs decided not to proceed with the suit. As a result, the suit has been declared abated.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court found that the plaintiff had expired and his legal heirs opted not to continue the suit, leading to its abatement.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court found that the plaintiff had expired and his legal heirs opted not to continue the suit, leading to its abatement.
Key Reasoning:
Why Defendant Won:
Supporting Evidence
Considering the facts and circumstances of case, parties shall bear their respective costs.

Judgment Evidence:

Hence suit is abated. All interim Orders shall stand vacated.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Prakashan
Party Age
72
Relation
S/o Ayichan
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Sree Bhagaval Sahaya Sangham
Relation
represented by Secretary P S Thampi Pradeepan
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Kshamavathy
Party Age
58
Relation
W/o Joshi
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
M K Peethambharan
Party Age
74
Relation
S/o Kochappan
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
S Shyam
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
G S Krishnan Kartha
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Retheesh Kumar M
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Lijin Thamban
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Abated
Description:
Suit is abated as the legal heirs of the plaintiff do not want to proceed.
Evidence:
Counsel for plaintiff submitted plaintiff expired one year back and Legal heirs of plaintiff does not want to proceed with the suit.

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 Prakashan vs Sree Bhagaval Sahaya Sangham et al regarding abatement of suit
Case Code Year
Case between Prakashan vs Sree Bhagaval Sahaya Sangham et al regarding abatement of suit

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam District
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Wed, 10/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Fri, 10/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
80%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases

Case between Garden View Apartment owners Association vs Ansal River Dale owners Association et al regarding Restoration Petition
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Shanoj R vs Joseph Augustin et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between M/s Indo Quartz vs M/s Ray Engineering Pvt. Ltd. et al regarding petition under Order 38 Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure.
COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between M/s. Canton Residency Pvt. Ltd. vs Kalamassery Municipality regarding dismissal of suit
THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Mrs. Julie Sebastian vs SREECHAND SPECIALITY HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. regarding settlement of claims.
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won