Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S. No.502/2023

Case between Sajeevan.V.S. vs SNDP Sakha No.1087, Divakaran regarding rejection of suit for non-payment of court fee

Court
II ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT
Judge
Smt. Maneesha K Bhadran
Order Date
2024-04-05
Duration
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiff, Sajeevan.V.S., has filed a suit against SNDP Sakha No.1087 and Divakaran. The case involves the rejection of the suit due to non-payment of the balance court fee.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court rejected the plaintiff's suit due to the non-payment of balance court fee.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court rejected the plaintiff's suit due to the non-payment of balance court fee.
Key Reasoning:
Balance court fee not paid.
Why Defendant Won:
Balance court fee not paid.
Supporting Evidence
Balance court fee not paid.

Judgment Evidence:

Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 5th day of April, 2024.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Sajeevan.V.S.
Party Age
56
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
SNDP Sakha No.1087
Relation
represented by its Secretary, Mr. Rajeesh
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Divakaran
Relation
The President
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
K.R. Vinod
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
M.S. Letha
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Aswin Venugopal
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Anu Ros
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
M.S. Unnikrishnan
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
K. Sunil
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Ardra Krishnan.M
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Diya Merin Biju
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Suit rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC due to balance court fee not paid.
Evidence:
Balance Court Fee not paid. Plaintiff rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC

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 Sajeevan.V.S. vs SNDP Sakha No.1087, Divakaran regarding rejection of suit for non-payment of court fee
Case Code Year
Case between Sajeevan.V.S. vs SNDP Sakha No.1087, Divakaran regarding rejection of suit for non-payment of court fee

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Mon, 04/01/2024 - 12:00
To
Tue, 04/30/2024 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between T.O Abraham et al vs T.O Aleyas et al regarding settlement of the suit
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Dismissed
Case between Prakash Pai, et al vs Saju, et al regarding undisclosed matter
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Unknown
Case between Nithya vs Babu et al regarding Dismissal of Listed Case
THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Kunju Bava vs C. A Abdulla regarding specific performance of agreement and consequential reliefs
The Court of the Principal Munsiff, Ernakulam
Civil Suit Unknown
Case between Ammini M.N et al vs Sindhu et al regarding undisclosed matter
THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won