Case Summary
Harikumar.S.P is the plaintiff, while Lalitha.O and Manu.M.L are the defendants. The case involves the rejection of the plaint due to the plaintiff's absence and non-remittance of court fees.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The plaint was rejected due to the absence of the plaintiff and the failure to remit the balance court fee.
Key Reasoning:
Why Defendant Won:
Supporting Evidence
Judgment Evidence:
Hence plaint rejected u/o 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Harikumar.S.P
- Party Age
- 42
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Lalitha.O
- Party Age
- 50
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Manu.M.L
- Party Age
- 29
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Jose Varghese
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Rakesh Edappura
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Smt. Sheeba Jacob
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Rejected
Description:
Plaint rejected due to lack of representation and balance court fee not remitted.
Evidence:
Hence plaint rejected u/o 7 Rule 11 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
Case between Harikumar.S.P vs Lalitha.O et al regarding plaint rejection
Case Code Year
Case between Harikumar.S.P vs Lalitha.O et al regarding plaint rejection