Case Summary
Ramla Beevi has filed a suit against Sulfikkar for the recovery of Rs 2,29,500 along with interest. She claims that Sulfikkar borrowed money from her, and despite requests, he has not returned it.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The application filed by the petitioner for an order of arrest before judgment was dismissed due to lack of sufficient evidence. No costs were ordered.
Key Reasoning:
The petitioner did not provide adequate evidence to support the claim that the respondent would evade court jurisdiction.
The petitioner did not provide adequate evidence to support the claim that the respondent would evade court jurisdiction.
Why Defendant Won:
The petitioner did not provide adequate evidence to support the claim that the respondent would evade court jurisdiction.
The petitioner did not provide adequate evidence to support the claim that the respondent would evade court jurisdiction.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner did not provide adequate evidence to support the claim that the respondent would evade court jurisdiction.
Judgment Evidence:
Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the power under O XXXVIII R 1 need not be invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case and the petitioner is not entitled to get an order of arrest before judgment as prayed for.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Ramla Beevi
- Party Age
- 60
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sulfikkar
- Party Age
- 33
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Ext.A1 25-01-2022 Promissory Note, Ext.A2 23-10-2024 Advocate Notice, Ext.A3 Unserved cover with A/D
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Satheesh Chandra Babu.L.
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Ziad.M.
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The petitioner sought an order of arrest before judgment.
Evidence:
Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the power under O XXXVIII R 1 need not be invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case and the petitioner is not entitled to get an order of arrest before judgment as prayed for.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Promissory Note
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The promissory note was executed by the respondent in favor of the petitioner for the borrowed amount.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Advocate Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The advocate notice was sent to the respondent demanding the borrowed amount and interest.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Postal Envelope
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The returned postal envelope related to the advocate notice was marked as evidence.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kollam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Kollam
Common Reasons
Case Code
OS.
Case Code Year
2024