Case Summary
Sudha is the plaintiff in this case, while Baby.K and Rajesh.N are the defendants. The court rejected the suit due to the plaintiff's absence and failure to remit the balance court fee.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court rejected the plaintiff's suit due to her absence and the lack of representation. The suit was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff was absent and did not remit the balance court fee.
The plaintiff was absent and did not remit the balance court fee.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiff was absent and did not remit the balance court fee.
The plaintiff was absent and did not remit the balance court fee.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiff was absent and did not remit the balance court fee.
Judgment Evidence:
Hence plaint rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Sudha
- Party Age
- 41
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Baby.K
- Party Age
- 65
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Rajesh.N
- Party Age
- 37
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Biju.H
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Rajeev.K.V
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. V.Bahuleyan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Smt. Geetha Nair.S
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Documents & Evidence
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Sudha vs Baby.K et al regarding court fee remittance
Case Code Year
Case between Sudha vs Baby.K et al regarding court fee remittance