Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S. No. 1138 /2023

Case between Vinu et al vs Biju P.T. et al regarding realization of money and permanent prohibitory injunction.

Court
II ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Smt. Needi. K. Dinamany
Order Date
2024-09-04
Duration
Case Closed
Wed, 09/04/2024 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiffs, including Vinu and Rima Ann, filed a suit for realization of money and for a permanent prohibitory injunction. The court found that the plaintiffs were absent and did not remit the required court fee.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court rejected the plaint for non-payment of balance court fee due to the absence of the plaintiffs and no representation.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court rejected the plaint for non-payment of balance court fee due to the absence of the plaintiffs and no representation.
Key Reasoning:
Why Defendant Won:
Supporting Evidence

Judgment Evidence:

Hence plaint is rejected for non payment of balance court fee under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Vinu
Party Age
47
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Rima Ann
Party Age
39
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Roy P. George
Party Age
52
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Biju P.T.
Party Age
48
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Sreeja M.V
Party Age
34
Relation
W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
A.C.Devasia
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Mathew Devassi
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Suit is one for realization of money and for permanent prohibitory injunction.
Evidence:
Suit is one for realization of money and for permanent prohibitory injunction.
Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Plaint is rejected for non payment of balance court fee.
Evidence:
Hence plaint is rejected for non payment of balance court fee under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

Documents & Evidence

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Vinu et al vs Biju P.T. et al regarding realization of money and permanent prohibitory injunction.
Case Code Year
Case between Vinu et al vs Biju P.T. et al regarding realization of money and permanent prohibitory injunction.

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Case Filed
Case Closed
Wed, 09/04/2024 - 12:00
From
Sun, 09/01/2024 - 12:00
To
Mon, 09/30/2024 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
75%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between T.O Abraham et al vs T.O Aleyas et al regarding settlement of the suit
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Dismissed
Case between Prakash Pai, et al vs Saju, et al regarding undisclosed matter
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Unknown
Case between Nithya vs Babu et al regarding Dismissal of Listed Case
THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Kunju Bava vs C. A Abdulla regarding specific performance of agreement and consequential reliefs
The Court of the Principal Munsiff, Ernakulam
Civil Suit Unknown
Case between Ammini M.N et al vs Sindhu et al regarding undisclosed matter
THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won