Case Summary
Preetha is the plaintiff seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction. The defendants include Mini, Anil Kumar, and Abhijith.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The applications IA 01/2024 and RP 267/2024 were dismissed by the court.
Key Reasoning:
No sufficient reason has been stated or proved to justify condonation of the delay.
No sufficient reason has been stated or proved to justify condonation of the delay.
Why Defendant Won:
Not available
Not available
Supporting Evidence
No sufficient reason has been stated or proved to justify condonation of the delay of 442 days in filing RP No. 267/2024.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, IA 01/2024 and RP 267/2024 are dismissed.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Preetha
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Mini
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Anil Kumar
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Abhijith
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Mathew Johnson
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Application for condonation of delay in filing RP 267/2024.
Evidence:
Consequently, the application for condonation of delay is devoid of merit.
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Restoration of the dismissed suit OS No. 701/2017.
Evidence:
In view of my finding on point No.1, this point does not germane for consideration.
Documents & Evidence
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kollam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Kollam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Preetha vs Mini et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction.
Case Code Year
Case between Preetha vs Mini et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction.