Home | Niyamam AI- Beta

Displaying 1831 - 1835 of 3335

District

Court Establishment

Public case category

Case Summary

Case between Sree Gokulam Chit & Finance Co-Pvt. Ltd. vs Mohammed Riyas regarding dishonour of cheque

Criminal Case - Cheque Dishonour under Section 138 of N.I. Act

S.T. No:121/2015

Tirur

2017-01-18

Approximately 1 year, 11 months

Plaintiff

View Full Details

Case between Nambunni vs Vasudevan regarding mandatory injunction

Civil Suit - Mandatory Injunction

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 134 OF 2014

Tirur

2017-01-17

2 years

Defendant

View Full Details

Case between Secretary, Perumanna Klari, Service Co-operative Bank vs Faisal Illikkal regarding amount recovery

Execution

EXECUTION PETITION NO. 7 OF 2016

Tirur

2017-01-17

Less than a year

Plaintiff

View Full Details

Case between Abdulkhadar C.V et al vs Muhammed Abdul Noor regarding execution of decree

Execution Petition

EXECUTION PETITION NO. 175 OF 2016

Tirur

2017-01-17

10 months

Defendant

View Full Details

Case between Kodiyamkunnath Moideen Kutty et al vs Karukayil Sathian et al regarding construction agreement

Civil Suit - Permanent Prohibitory Injunction

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 132 OF 2013

Tirur

2018-01-31

4 years

Defendant

View Full Details

Historical Outcome Trends

Based on analysis of similar cases in Kerala Munsif Courts

Disclaimer: This is informational analysis based on historical data, not legal advice. Every case is unique. Consult a qualified lawyer for personalized guidance.

49%

Success Rate for Plaintiff

Based on 3,335 similar cases

Key Insights

Documentary Evidence Strength High Impact

Average Case Duration 1.5 years

Settlement Likelihood 14%

Common Winning Factors:

Commission Report (in 79 cases)
Lawyer Notice (in 77 cases)
Jenm Assignment Deed (in 61 cases)
Tax receipt (in 51 cases)
Agreement (in 49 cases)

Plaintiff Won: 1626
Defendant Won: 1095

1095

Cases Failed

Primary Reasons

24%

Top Reason Occurrence

Common Failure Reasons

Learn why cases like yours failed so you can avoid mistakes

Default Due to Non-Payment of Batta

Plaintiffs frequently failed to pay required court fees, leading to case dismissals.

Found in 24 cases (24%) High Impact

Lack of Evidence Presented

Many plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claims, resulting in case dismissals.

Found in 22 cases (22%) High Impact

Failure to Take Required Steps

Plaintiffs neglected to take necessary procedural steps, such as issuing notices, leading to default dismissals.

Found in 19 cases (19%) Medium Impact

Absence of the Petitioner

In several cases, the petitioners were absent in court proceedings, which resulted in dismissals.

Found in 15 cases (15%) Medium 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

Default Due to Non-Payment of Batta

Lack of Evidence Presented

Failure to Take Required Steps

Absence of the Petitioner

How to Strengthen Your Case

Need More Details?