Case Summary
Reena Varghese is the plaintiff seeking recovery of money from Hemalatha Reji and others. The suit arises from a loan agreement that the defendants failed to honor.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit has been dismissed as the plaintiff was found not to have locus standi to file the suit seeking recovery of money. The parties are directed to bear their respective costs.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff was not entitled to realisation of the amount as she did not have the right to file the suit.
The plaintiff was not entitled to realisation of the amount as she did not have the right to file the suit.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiff was not entitled to realisation of the amount as she did not have the right to file the suit.
The plaintiff was not entitled to realisation of the amount as she did not have the right to file the suit.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiff does not have any right to file the suit and that her husband Varghese was the person who should have filed the case.
Judgment Evidence:
The suit is therefore dismissed. The plaintiff is directed to pay the court fee which should have been paid by the plaintiff, if she had not been permitted to suit as an indigent.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Reena Varghese
- Party Age
- 40
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Hemalatha Reji
- Party Age
- 40
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Reji
- Party Age
- 43
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Vinod Kumar
- Party Age
- 45
Plaintiffs Documents
True copy of Statement of Account (Subject to proof), True copy of Statement of Account for the period from 01.03.2022 to 23.11.2022 (Subject to proof), Office copy of Lawyer Notice, Reply Notice
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Manoj G. Krishnan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Bar Registration
- District Govt. Pleader & Public Prosecutor
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- M. Y. Saju
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Haritha Hariharan
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Recovery
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Plaintiff sought recovery of ₹7,00,000/- from defendants.
Evidence:
The plaintiff therefore is not entitled to realise an amount as sought for, or to any interest as sought for.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Statement of Account
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
True copy of Statement of Account marked subject to proof.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Statement of Account
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
True copy of Statement of Account for the period from 01.03.2022 to 23.11.2022 marked subject to proof.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Lawyer Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Office copy of Lawyer Notice issued to defendants.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Reply Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Reply Notice from defendants.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Recovery of money
Case Code
Case between Reena Varghese vs Hemalatha Reji et al regarding recovery of money.
Case Code Year
Case between Reena Varghese vs Hemalatha Reji et al regarding recovery of money.
Case Flags
Cheque-Related Case
Nature of Cheque Case
Cheque issued towards legally enforceable debt