Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS. No.2018/2023

Case between Ranichandra vs Sheeja.T.O regarding Balance Court Fee

Court
COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-III
Judge
Smt.Sreelakshmi. C
Order Date
2025-03-05
Duration
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiff, Ranichandra, filed a suit against the defendant, Sheeja.T.O, regarding the non-remittance of the Balance Court Fee. The court found that no application was submitted to seek time to remit the court fee, leading to the rejection of the suit.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court rejected the suit due to the plaintiff's failure to remit the Balance Court Fee or apply for an extension of time.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court rejected the suit due to the plaintiff's failure to remit the Balance Court Fee or apply for an extension of time.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff failed to comply with court procedures regarding the remittance of court fees.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiff failed to comply with court procedures regarding the remittance of court fees.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiff represented. No Balance Court Fee remitted so far. No application seen filed for seeking time to remit Balance Court Fee.

Judgment Evidence:

Hence Plaint rejected U/O7 Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Ranichandra
Party Age
44
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Sheeja.T.O
Party Age
41
Relation
D/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. Siva Kumar.A
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.Vinod Kumar.S
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.Soji.G.S
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Rejected
Description:
The court rejected the case due to no balance court fee being remitted.
Evidence:
No Balance Court Fee remitted so far . No application seen filed for seeking time to remit Balance Court Fee . Hence Plaint rejected U/O7 Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure.

Documents & Evidence

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Ranichandra vs Sheeja.T.O regarding Balance Court Fee
Case Code Year
Case between Ranichandra vs Sheeja.T.O regarding Balance Court Fee

Quick Facts

Location
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Sat, 03/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Mon, 03/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
85%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Union Bank of India et al vs Midhun. M regarding rejection of plaint
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Purushothaman Pillay Divakaran et al vs Deepti Sivan regarding injunction
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Sreenath.S vs Thankarajan et al regarding dismissal of suit as not pressed
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Sindhu.S et al vs Lalitha et al regarding withdrawal of suit
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Vanitha Sureshbabu Thilak vs Babu Chettiyar et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won