Case Summary
The plaintiff, M/s. ECOVIZ, was represented by its manager, Yadhukrishnan A. The case was dismissed due to the plaintiff's absence and failure to pay the balance court fee.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court rejected the suit due to the plaintiff's absence and non-payment of the court fee.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff was absent and did not pay the court fee.
The plaintiff was absent and did not pay the court fee.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiff was absent and did not pay the court fee.
The plaintiff was absent and did not pay the court fee.
Supporting Evidence
The court found that the plaintiff was absent and that the balance court fee had not been paid.
Judgment Evidence:
This suit having been finally heard on 26/06/2025 and the court on the same day delivered the following: Suit rejected under order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Yadhukrishnan A
- Party Age
- 31
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Grand Electricals and Electricals
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Poilan Moosa Abdulla Haji
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Vimal Kumar T G
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Rejected
Description:
Suit rejected under order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.
Evidence:
Balance Court Fee not paid. Suit rejected under order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.
Documents & Evidence
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between M/s. ECOVIZ vs Grand Electricals and Electricals regarding suit rejection
Case Code Year
Case between M/s. ECOVIZ vs Grand Electricals and Electricals regarding suit rejection