Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O S 346/2015

Case between Sulochanamma et al vs Padmaja Muraleedharan et al regarding suit dismissal for default

Court
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, VAIKOM
Judge
Kum. Abhinimol Rajendran
Order Date
2025-02-14
Duration
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiffs, Sulochanamma and Sathyabhama, filed a suit against the defendants, including Padmaja Muraleedharan and others. The court dismissed the suit for default as the plaintiff was not represented despite notice.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court dismissed the suit due to the plaintiff's failure to represent themselves, despite having received notice.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the suit due to the plaintiff's failure to represent themselves, despite having received notice.
Key Reasoning:
Plaintiff not represented despite notice.
Why Defendant Won:
Plaintiff not represented despite notice.
Supporting Evidence
The judgment states that the plaintiff was not represented despite notice, thus leading to a dismissal for default.

Judgment Evidence:

Hence suit dismissed for default. Pronounced in open court on this the 14th day of February, 2025.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Sulochanamma
Party Age
81
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Sathyabhama
Party Age
73
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
G.Kaladharan
Party Age
48
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
G.Sajeev
Party Age
45
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
K.G.Sunessh Kumar
Party Age
36
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Padmaja Muraleedharan
Party Age
50
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Rajeswary Mohan
Party Age
47
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
P.Sasikumar
Party Age
52
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Chandrasekharan Nair
Party Age
70
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Asha.C.Nair
Party Age
43
Relation
W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Johny.K.Manippadam
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
K.K.Kavitha
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
C.P.Gopalakrishnan Nair
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
John Jude Issac
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Not Decided
Description:
Suit dismissed for default due to the plaintiff not being represented.
Evidence:
Hence suit dismissed for default.

Documents & Evidence

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Vaikom
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Sulochanamma et al vs Padmaja Muraleedharan et al regarding suit dismissal for default
Case Code Year
Case between Sulochanamma et al vs Padmaja Muraleedharan et al regarding suit dismissal for default

Quick Facts

Location
Vaikom Taluk
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Vaikom
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Wed, 01/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Fri, 02/28/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
75%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Kamala Veni et al vs Rajan et al regarding injunction and fixing the boundaries.
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, VAIKOM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Merykutty vs James et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, VAIKOM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between George vs Mary regarding mediation settlement
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, VAIKOM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Simson.P.Mathew vs N.K.Kurian et al regarding injunction
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, VAIKOM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Ancy vs Jose @ P.S.Joseph et al regarding partition and permanent prohibitory injunction.
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, VAIKOM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won