Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS.342/2019

Case between Sunny Antony vs Jafarkhan regarding suit rejection.

Court
IN THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, PERUMBAVOOR
Judge
Smt. Sumey Chandran
Order Date
2025-10-24
Duration
Case Code No.
342
Case Closed
Fri, 10/24/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Sunny Antony filed a suit against Jafarkhan. The case was rejected by the court due to the plaintiff's absence and failure to remit the balance court fee.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The plaintiff was absent and did not remit the balance court fee, resulting in the rejection of the suit.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The plaintiff was absent and did not remit the balance court fee, resulting in the rejection of the suit.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff's absence and failure to remit the necessary court fee led to the rejection of the suit.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiff's absence and failure to remit the necessary court fee led to the rejection of the suit.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiff was absent and balance court fee not remitted.

Judgment Evidence:

Hence suit rejected. Pronounced by me in open court on this the 24 th day of October, 2025.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Sunny Antony
Party Age
64
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Jafarkhan
Party Age
58
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
E C Paulose
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Bobby Rapheal
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
G Govindan Nair
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
George Mathew
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Rejected
Description:
Suit rejected due to plaintiff's absence and non-remittance of balance court fee.
Evidence:
Plaintiff absent. Balance court fee not remitted. Hence suit rejected.

Documents & Evidence

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor
Common Reasons
Case Code
OS.
Case Code Year
2019

Quick Facts

Location
Perumbavoor, Ernakulam District
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor
Case Filed
Case Closed
Fri, 10/24/2025 - 12:00
From
Wed, 10/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Fri, 10/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between The Federal Bank Ltd. Keezhillam Branch vs Anagha Mariya Siby et al regarding suit dismissal
Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor
Civil Suit Dismissed
Case between Ameena Makkar et al vs Aji et al regarding Suit dismissal for default
Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Binojkumar Nair vs Jitha Gopi et al regarding Suit rejection under order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C.
The Munsiff Court of Perumbavoor
Civil Suit Dismissed
Case between Union Bank of India, Perumbavoor Branch vs Shihab K A regarding Suit not pressed
THE MUNSIFF COURT OF PERUMBAVOOR
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Prakash V vs Chummar et al regarding Suit Rejection under Order 7 Rule 11
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, PERUMBAVOOR
Civil Suit Defendant Won