Case Summary
The plaintiff, Ayoobkhan, is a household products trader who has filed a suit against Fousya H., the proprietrix of M/s. Ajmeer Enterprises, for failure to repay a significant investment and the value of supplied goods. The defendant did not appear in court, leading to an exparte decision.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit was dismissed due to the plaintiff not being entitled to a decree as sought for, primarily for the non-joinder of a necessary party. There is no order as to costs.
Key Reasoning:
Why Defendant Won:
Supporting Evidence
Judgment Evidence:
In the result: The suit is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Ayoobkhan
- Party Age
- 48
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Fousya H.
- Party Age
- 33
- Relation
- D/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Copy of the notice dated 26.10.2019, True copy of the complaint before Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ernakulam.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Innocent Francis Papali
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Tincy M.B
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as sought for by the plaintiff.
Evidence:
Thus an overall consideration of all these aspects reveals only that the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree as sought for.
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Mandatory injunction as claimed by the plaintiff.
Evidence:
Thus an overall consideration of all these aspects reveals only that the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree as sought for.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
GST Registration Certificate
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Not marked in evidence as no foundation for secondary evidence is laid down.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Income Tax Return Verification Form
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Marked subject to production of certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, but not produced.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Complaint
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
True copy of the complaint filed by the plaintiff before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, but not accepted due to lack of proof.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Lease Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Marked subject to proof but the document is not admitted into evidence.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Lease Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Marked subject to proof but the document is not admitted into evidence.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Non-payment of investment
Case Code
Case between Ayoobkhan vs Fousya H. regarding permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Ayoobkhan vs Fousya H. regarding permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction