Case Summary
The plaintiff, Pushpavally, filed a suit for injunction against the defendants, Rajeev Kumar and Rajesh Kumar. The case was dismissed for want of prosecution due to the continuous absence of the plaintiff.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Injunction
Final Judgment
No
The suit was dismissed due to the plaintiff's continuous absence and lack of representation.
Key Reasoning:
Why Defendant Won:
Supporting Evidence
Judgment Evidence:
Since the plaintiff remained absent, suit dismissed for want of prosecution.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Pushpavally
- Party Age
- 71
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Rajeev Kumar
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Rajesh Kumar
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Manager, Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- S.K.Prakash Sathyanathan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- R.Mohana Kumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- A.Manoj
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Injunction
Outcome:
Rejected
Description:
Plaintiff filed for injunction but the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution.
Evidence:
Since the plaintiff remained absent, suit dismissed for want of prosecution.
Documents & Evidence
Case Classification
Case Type
Injunction
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kollam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Kollam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Pushpavally vs Rajeev Kumar, Rajesh Kumar et al regarding Injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Pushpavally vs Rajeev Kumar, Rajesh Kumar et al regarding Injunction