| Niyamam AI

Displaying 1166 - 1170 of 21891

District

Court Establishment

Public case category

Case Summary

Parties/Entities involved(eg: Bank, Panchayath, temple, Mosque etc.)

Case between Canara Bank vs Aiswarya Karshaka Sangam et al regarding recovery of money.

Civil Suit

O.S. No. 298/2022

Kottayam

2025-08-21

approximately-7 years 8 months

Plaintiff

View Full Details

Case between M M James vs M M Mathew et al regarding Execution Petition

Execution Petition

OS No. 387/2011

Kottayam

2025-08-22

Plaintiff

View Full Details

Case between Abraham K Eapen vs Santhosh et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction

Civil Suit

O.S. No. 23/2024

Kottayam District

2025-08-22

approximately-1 year 6 months

Plaintiff

View Full Details

Case between C A Najeeb vs A K Aslam regarding recovery of money

Civil Suit

O.S. No. 551/2024

Kottayam

2025-08-23

approximately-3 years 1 month

Plaintiff

View Full Details

Case between Rajeev A M vs Subin Thomas regarding dishonour of cheque

Criminal Case

S.T. 126/2020

Kottayam

2025-08-25

approximately-5 years 7 months

Plaintiff

View Full Details

Historical Outcome Trends

Based on analysis of similar cases in Kerala Munsif Courts

AI & Machine Learning Estimate

These figures are produced by statistical and machine-learning analysis of past court judgments. They are not legal advice and not a prediction about your own case. Every case turns on its own facts — please consult a qualified lawyer before making any decision.

49%

Success Rate for Plaintiff

Based on 21,803 similar cases

Key Insights

Documentary Evidence Strength High Impact

Average Case Duration 3.7 years

Settlement Likelihood 12%

Common Winning Factors:

Commission Report (in 1214 cases)
Sale deed (in 964 cases)
Postal receipt (in 953 cases)
Tax receipt (in 826 cases)
Lawyer Notice (in 804 cases)

Plaintiff Won: 10751
Defendant Won: 9603

9644

Cases Failed

Primary Reasons

38%

Top Reason Occurrence

Common Failure Reasons

Learn why cases like yours failed so you can avoid mistakes

Non-Payment of Batta

Petitioners frequently failed to pay necessary fees, leading to case dismissals for default.

Found in 38 cases (38%) High Impact

Lack of Evidence Presented

Insufficient evidence regarding the means of the respondents contributed heavily to case dismissals.

Found in 25 cases (25%) Medium Impact

Absence of Petitioners in Court

Frequent non-appearance of petitioners in court proceedings resulted in dismissals.

Found in 18 cases (18%) Medium Impact

Failure to Take Required Steps

Omissions in taking procedural steps to issue notices and warrants led to many default dismissals.

Found in 15 cases (15%) Low Impact

How to Strengthen Your Case

Gather all documentary evidence (title deeds, receipts, contracts) before filing
Ensure filing is within limitation period - consult lawyer about deadlines
Prepare witnesses thoroughly and ensure their statements are consistent
Maintain complete chain of ownership documents with no gaps
Follow all procedural requirements and court timelines strictly

Need More Details?

View complete analysis of failed cases in your category

Kerala Civil Court Judgments Database

Public User

Legal Professional

similar cases search

Historical Outcome Trends

Key Insights

Common Winning Factors:

Common Failure Reasons

Non-Payment of Batta

Lack of Evidence Presented

Absence of Petitioners in Court

Failure to Take Required Steps

How to Strengthen Your Case

Need More Details?