Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS.No.918/2021

Case between Sujith vs JMV LPS Limited regarding rejection of plaint

Court
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Judge
Sri. Mithun Gopi.G.S
Order Date
2025-03-19
Duration
Case Code No.
918
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Sujith, the plaintiff, is a proprietor of SL Electrical Works in Thiruvananthapuram. The defendant, JMV LPS Limited, is a company based in Noida. The court dismissed the suit due to lack of payment of balance court fee.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court dismissed the plaintiff's application due to the failure to pay the balance court fee, leading to the rejection of the plaint.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the plaintiff's application due to the failure to pay the balance court fee, leading to the rejection of the plaint.
Key Reasoning:
The plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure due to non-payment of the required court fee.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure due to non-payment of the required court fee.
Supporting Evidence
No balance court fee seen remitted and no proper application seen filed seeking time for payment of balance court fee.

Judgment Evidence:

the plaint is rejected under Order VII Rule 11(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Sujith
Party Age
43
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
JMV LPS Limited
Relation
represented by its Director
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.K.K. Vijayan
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Vinoth. B
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Rejected
Description:
The plaint is rejected under Order VII Rule 11(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Evidence:
Hence, the plaint is rejected under Order VII Rule 11(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

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
OS.NO.
Case Code Year
2021

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
90%

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