Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS.No.619/2025

Case between S.Arumughom vs Aravind Bency et al regarding IA.No.2/2025

Court
ADDL. MUNSIFF (RCC)
Judge
Smt.Salini.B
Order Date
2025-03-29
Duration
Case Code No.
619
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

S.Arumughom is the plaintiff in a matter against Aravind Bency and Latha Bency regarding an interim application. The court has found a prima facie case and allowed the application.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court allowed the interim application for further proceedings. An advocate commissioner has been appointed to assist in determining the matters in dispute.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
The court granted permission for the application and appointed an advocate commissioner.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court allowed the interim application for further proceedings. An advocate commissioner has been appointed to assist in determining the matters in dispute.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The petitioner made out a prima facie case.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Not available
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner is made out a prima facie case.

Judgment Evidence:

Hence, for ascertaining the matters in the petition and for elucidating the disputes between the parties, this IA is allowed.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
S.Arumughom
Party Age
51
Relation
S/o Late S.Sachidanandan
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Aravind Bency
Party Age
41
Relation
S/o. Late A.Bency
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Latha Bency
Party Age
60
Relation
W/o Late A.Bency
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.Renjith.C.Nair
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Court
Advocate Name
Sri. Mohammed Uvais (C/o. Adv. Ajith S Nair)
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The petition for the appointment of an advocate commissioner was granted.
Evidence:
Hence, for ascertaining the matters in the petition and for elucidating the disputes between the parties, this IA is allowed.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Affidavit
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
The affidavit was perused to determine the prima facie case.
Reference:
Document Type: Memo
Submitted By: Unknown
Relevance:
The petitioner is directed to file a memo in court for the payment of batta.
Reference:

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
OS.NO.
Case Code Year
2025

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
95%

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