Case Summary
The plaintiffs sought to realize money from the defendants through a suit. However, the plaint was rejected due to non-remittance of balance court fee.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Not Decided
Case Type
Civil Suit - Money Realization
Final Judgment
No
The plaint was rejected due to non-remittance of balance court fee.
Key Reasoning:
Reason not clearly mentioned
Reason not clearly mentioned
Why Defendant Won:
Reason not clearly mentioned
Reason not clearly mentioned
Supporting Evidence
Judgment Evidence:
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Raramkandath Aboobacker
- Party Age
- 59
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Kunhimuhammed Haji
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Raramkandath Usman Koya
- Party Age
- 55
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Kunhimuhammed Haji
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Not Decided
Outcome:
Not Decided
Description:
Balanced court fee non-remittance
Evidence:
Suit for relisation of money. No balance court fee remitted. Hence plaint is rejected under Order 7 Rule 11.
Documents & Evidence
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit - Money Realization
Category
Money and Loan Recovery
District
Malappuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Tirur / Rent Control Court
Common Reasons
Money Realization
Case Code
Case between Raramkandath Aboobacker et al vs Raramkandath Usman Koya et al regarding money realization
Case Code Year
Case between Raramkandath Aboobacker et al vs Raramkandath Usman Koya et al regarding money realization