Case Summary
Pratheeksha Kuries and investments Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit against Jose Lal. The plaintiff was absent during the hearing, and the court rejected the suit.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court pronounced the judgment in open court, stating that the suit was rejected due to the plaintiff's absence.
Key Reasoning:
Why Defendant Won:
Supporting Evidence
Reason not clearly mentioned.
Judgment Evidence:
Suit rejected. Pronounced by me in open court on this the 19th day of January, 2024.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Pratheeksha Kuries and investments Pvt. Ltd.
- Relation
- represented by its Manager, Smt Girijakumari A.T.
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Jose Lal
- Party Age
- 40
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- K.V.Sanosh
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- M.Paul Varghese
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Rejected
Description:
Suit rejected due to the absence of the plaintiff and non-payment of court fees.
Evidence:
Suit rejected.
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 Pratheeksha Kuries and investments Pvt. Ltd. vs Jose Lal regarding suit rejection
Case Code Year
Case between Pratheeksha Kuries and investments Pvt. Ltd. vs Jose Lal regarding suit rejection