Skip to main content
Niyamam AI- Beta Niyamam AI- Beta

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S. No. 391/2023

Case between Shaija Saji vs Greeshma M. regarding Permanent prohibitory injunction

Court
THE COURT OF THE THIRD ADDL. MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROLLER
Judge
Smt. REEJA R. NAIR
Order Date
2024-10-25
Duration
approximately-1 year 9 months

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiff, Shaija Saji, filed a suit seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant, Greeshma M., for demanding her to vacate a rented apartment contrary to their agreement. The case involves the plaintiff's right to stay in the apartment until December 2023.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The suit was dismissed as the plaintiff failed to prove the averments of her case with sufficient and credible evidence. The court found that the plaintiff did not provide adequate proof of her tenancy.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff failed to prove her case beyond the preponderance of probabilities.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, suit is dismissed.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Shaija Saji (48 years years) Flat No. 17H, Trinity world Jupiter, Chittethukara P.O., Kakkanad, Pin-682 037

Defendants

Greeshma M. (47 years years) Narikode, Chandranagar P.O., Palakkad-678007

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
The plaintiff sought a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant.
Evidence:
Hence, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff failed to prove the plaint averments with sufficient and cogent evidence. Thus, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff failed to prove the plaint averments with sufficient and cogent evidence.
Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Not Decided
Description:
Relief and costs were discussed but not specifically decided.
Evidence:
In the result, suit is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reason that defendant remained exparte, there is no order as to costs.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Written complaint
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
A copy of a written complaint filed before Infopark Police Station, used as evidence in the case.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Photographs
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Photographs intended to support the plaintiff's case, subject to production of certification under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
Reference:
Ext.A2

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Fri, 01/13/2023 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
80%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases