Case Summary
The plaintiffs, Kunhanu Haji and Cherukkatt Valappil Pathumma, filed a suit for injunction against the defendants, Raihanath and Kunhumuhammed. The plaintiff's counsel reported no instruction, and the plaintiff was absent, leading to the dismissal of the suit for default.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit was dismissed for default due to the absence of the plaintiffs and no representation by their counsel, while one defendant was present.
Key Reasoning:
Why Defendant Won:
Supporting Evidence
Judgment Evidence:
Suit is dismissed for default with costs to defendants.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Kunhanu Haji
- Party Age
- 66
- Relation
- S/o.
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Cherukkatt Valappil Pathumma
- Party Age
- 60
- Relation
- W/o.
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Raihanath
- Party Age
- 29
- Relation
- D/o.
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Kunhumuhammed
- Party Age
- 55
- Relation
- S/o.
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri.V.Chandrasekharan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. K. Vipin
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Dinesh Pookkayil
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Injunction
Outcome:
Dismissed
Description:
Suit for injunction
Evidence:
Suit is dismissed for default with costs to defendants.
Documents & Evidence
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Malappuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Tirur / Rent Control Court
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Kunhanu Haji et al vs Raihanath et al regarding injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Kunhanu Haji et al vs Raihanath et al regarding injunction