Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S No. 1248/2015

Case between Pushpavally vs Unnikrishnan et al regarding dismissal for default

Court
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Sri. Nanda Krishna M.
Order Date
2025-01-10
Duration
approximately-9 years 26 days
Case Closed
Fri, 01/10/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The case involves Pushpavally as the plaintiff and Unnikrishnan and SreeGopal as defendants. The plaintiff was absent during the hearing, leading to the suit being dismissed for default.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The suit was dismissed for default due to the absence of the plaintiff, who did not present any proof affidavit. The suit was ongoing since 2015.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit was dismissed for default due to the absence of the plaintiff, who did not present any proof affidavit. The suit was ongoing since 2015.
Key Reasoning:
The suit was dismissed as the plaintiff failed to appear in court.
Why Defendant Won:
The suit was dismissed as the plaintiff failed to appear in court.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiff was absent. No proof affidavit seen filed.

Judgment Evidence:

Hence, Suit is dismissed for default.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Pushpavally
Party Age
67
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Unnikrishnan
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
SreeGopal
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
R.Rajesh
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sibi Karun
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sreejith K.A
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Lal K Joseph
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
P.Muraleedharan
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Luxy T.A
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Shaheer A.J
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Dismissed
Description:
Suit dismissed for default due to plaintiff's absence
Evidence:
Suit is dismissed for default.

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 Pushpavally vs Unnikrishnan et al regarding dismissal for default
Case Code Year
Case between Pushpavally vs Unnikrishnan et al regarding dismissal for default

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Case Filed
Thu, 01/01/2015 - 12:00
Case Closed
Fri, 01/10/2025 - 12:00
From
Wed, 01/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Fri, 01/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between T.O Abraham et al vs T.O Aleyas et al regarding settlement of the suit
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Dismissed
Case between Prakash Pai, et al vs Saju, et al regarding undisclosed matter
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Unknown
Case between Nithya vs Babu et al regarding Dismissal of Listed Case
THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Kunju Bava vs C. A Abdulla regarding specific performance of agreement and consequential reliefs
The Court of the Principal Munsiff, Ernakulam
Civil Suit Unknown
Case between Ammini M.N et al vs Sindhu et al regarding undisclosed matter
THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won