Case Summary
Antony is the plaintiff seeking realization of money from Latha. The suit ultimately resulted in the rejection of the plaint due to non-payment of court fees.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The plaint was rejected due to the balance court fee not being paid.
Key Reasoning:
Balance Court Fee not paid.
Balance Court Fee not paid.
Why Defendant Won:
Balance Court Fee not paid.
Balance Court Fee not paid.
Supporting Evidence
Balance Court Fee not paid.
Judgment Evidence:
Hence plaint rejected u/o 7 Rule 11(c) of Civil Procedure Code.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Antony
- Party Age
- 45
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Latha
- Party Age
- 52
- Relation
- W/o Late Geetha Krishnan
Plaintiffs Documents
Nil
Defendants Documents
Nil
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- K.S.Rajiv Thevally
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- G.Bimal Raj
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- S.Anil Kumar
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Rejected
Description:
Plaint rejected due to non-payment of balance court fee.
Evidence:
Balance Court Fee not paid. Hence plaint rejected u/o 7 Rule 11(c) of Civil Procedure Code.
Documents & Evidence
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kollam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Kollam
Common Reasons
Realisation of Money
Case Code
Case between Antony vs Latha regarding Realisation of Money
Case Code Year
Case between Antony vs Latha regarding Realisation of Money