Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS.No.327/2021

Case between Canara Bank (erstwhile Syndicate Bank) vs Kalarani et al regarding rejection of plaint

Court
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Judge
Sri. Mithun Gopi.G.S
Order Date
2025-03-18
Duration
approximately-3 years 0 days
Case Code No.
327
Case Closed
Tue, 03/18/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Canara Bank filed a suit against Kalarani and Santhakumari.E regarding a dispute that led to the rejection of the plaint. The case was heard and decided by the Principal Munsiff.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court rejected the plaint due to the plaintiff not remitting the balance court fee and no application being filed.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court rejected the plaint due to the plaintiff not remitting the balance court fee and no application being filed.
Key Reasoning:
The plaint was rejected based on procedural grounds.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaint was rejected based on procedural grounds.
Supporting Evidence
The court found that the balance court fee was not seen remitted and that no application was seen filed.

Judgment Evidence:

Hence, the plaint is rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Canara Bank (erstwhile Syndicate Bank)
Relation
Represented by
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Kalarani
Party Age
45
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Santhakumari.E
Party Age
61
Relation
C/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.Nizar.A
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Rejected
Description:
The plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure due to balance court fee not seen remitted and no application filed.
Evidence:
the plaint is rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Documents & Evidence

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
OS.NO.
Case Code Year
2021

Quick Facts

Location
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Thu, 03/18/2021 - 12:00
Case Closed
Tue, 03/18/2025 - 12:00
From
Sat, 03/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Mon, 03/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
95%

Involved Entities

Bank

Similar Cases

Case between Indian Overseas Bank vs Aradhi Restaurant regarding rejection of plaint
Court of Principal Munsiff
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Indian Overseas Bank vs Santhosh Kumar regarding realisation of money.
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Canara Bank vs Jayan. E et al regarding realisation of money
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Canara Bank vs Smt. Sheeja. N regarding plaint rejection
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Union Bank of India et al vs Midhun. M regarding rejection of plaint
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Defendant Won