Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS.No. 173/2023

Case between Sakkeer Hussain vs Kassim Kunju et al regarding setting aside a Settlement Deed and Specific Performance.

Court
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KOLLAM
Judge
Smt. Ragi.S.
Order Date
2025-08-25
Duration
Case Code No.
173
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiff, Sakkeer Hussain, has filed a suit to set aside a Settlement Deed and for Specific Performance. The defendants include Kassim Kunju and others, and the matter was heard on August 25, 2025.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The plaint was rejected because the plaintiff did not remit the balance court fee and was absent during the hearing.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The plaint was rejected because the plaintiff did not remit the balance court fee and was absent during the hearing.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff failed to prosecute the case due to absence and non-payment of court fees.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiff failed to prosecute the case due to absence and non-payment of court fees.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiff’s counsel submitted no instruction. Plaintiff called absent. Balance Court Fee not remitted by the plaintiff.

Judgment Evidence:

Hence plaint rejected u/o 7 Rule 11(c) of Civil Procedure Code.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Sakkeer Hussain
Party Age
57
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Kassim Kunju
Party Age
82
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Nazaruddeen
Party Age
60
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Nahas Nazar
Party Age
30
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
V.Vinayachandran
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Rejected
Description:
Rejection of the plaint due to absence of the plaintiff and non-remittance of court fees.
Evidence:
Balance Court Fee not remitted by the plaintiff. Hence plaint rejected u/o 7 Rule 11(c) of Civil Procedure Code.

Documents & Evidence

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kollam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Kollam
Common Reasons
Case Code
OS.NO.
Case Code Year
2023

Quick Facts

Location
Kollam
District
Kollam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Kollam
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Tue, 07/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Sun, 08/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
95%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Satheesh et al vs Ajayan regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KOLLAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Babu Chandhar et al vs Sarada Chandhatty et al regarding Partition.
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, KOLLAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Parukutti Amma et al vs Abdul Rahim regarding restoration of suit.
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KOLLAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Piyoos vs Sheemol regarding setting aside the order in RP.No.259/2024
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KOLLAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Sajeev vs T.Unnikrishna Pillai regarding setting aside an exparte decree.
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KOLLAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won