Case Summary
The case involves George, the plaintiff, who filed a suit for fixation of boundary, permanent prohibitory injunction, and recovery of possession. The suit has been pending since 2007 and various petitions have been filed regarding evidence and witnesses.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the applications filed by the plaintiff to accept an additional witness list and to reopen the plaintiff's evidence due to lack of cogent reasons for the delay.
Key Reasoning:
The petitions were deemed highly belated with no valid reason to entertain them.
The petitions were deemed highly belated with no valid reason to entertain them.
Why Defendant Won:
The petitions were deemed highly belated with no valid reason to entertain them.
The petitions were deemed highly belated with no valid reason to entertain them.
Supporting Evidence
It is clearly evident on perusal of the proceedings of the case and the records of the case that these petitions are highly belated and that no cogent reason is available to positively entertain these petitions.
Judgment Evidence:
Hence these petitions are dismissed.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- George
- Party Age
- 72
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Madhavi
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Ajith
- Party Age
- 43
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Devi Priya Pradeep Kumar
- Party Age
- 59
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Santhosh Kumar C.P
- Party Age
- 59
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Rathi Saju
- Party Age
- 55
- Relation
- D/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- A. Balagopalan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- A. Rajagopalan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- M. N Manmadan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- V.V Sidharthan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Kannan Babu
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Vipin D.G
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Nandagopan S. Nair
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Daniel A.J
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Manisha V.V
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- J. Amaldev
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Karol Mathews Sebastian Alencherry
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Petition to reopen plaintiff's evidence for examination of Advocate Commissioner, Survey Superintendent, and expert.
Evidence:
Hence these petitions are dismissed.
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Petition to accept additional witness list.
Evidence:
Hence these petitions are dismissed.
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 George vs Madhavi et al regarding fixation of boundary and other reliefs.
Case Code Year
Case between George vs Madhavi et al regarding fixation of boundary and other reliefs.