Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS.987/2025

Case between Harilekshmi vs AnilKumar regarding IA.No.3/2025

Court
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-II
Judge
Smt. Sincy Jacob
Order Date
2025-06-05
Duration
Case Code No.
987
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The case involves a petition by Harilekshmi against AnilKumar regarding an interim application. The court allowed the IA for further inquiry into the matters in dispute.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court allowed the interim application for clarification of matters in dispute between the parties.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Case Type
Final Judgment
No
The court allowed the interim application for clarification of matters in dispute between the parties.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The petitioner made out a prima facie case.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The petitioner made out a prima facie case.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner has made out a prima facie case.

Judgment Evidence:

Hence, for ascertaining the matters in the petition and for elucidating the matters in dispute between, the parties, this IA is allowed.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Harilekshmi
Party Age
40
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
AnilKumar
Party Age
48
Relation
H/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Affidavit, plaint and other documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.L.Satheesh
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri.M.S.Sankarankutty
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Unknown
Advocate Name
Rejina R.
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Law Firm
C/o Adv.Sikandhar Jan

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The petitioner has made out a prima facie case and the IA is allowed.
Evidence:
Hence, for ascertaining the matters in the petition and for elucidating the matters in dispute between, the parties, this IA is allowed.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Affidavit
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
The court perused the affidavit and other documents in context to the case.
Reference:
Document Type: Plaint
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
The court perused the plaint and other documents in context to the case.
Reference:
Document Type: Commissioner Report
Submitted By: Unknown
Relevance:
The advocate commissioner is directed to file a report as per the order.
Reference:
Document Type: Order
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
The order issued by the court allowing the IA and appointing the advocate commissioner.
Reference:
IA.No.3/2025

Case Classification

Case Type
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
OS.
Case Code Year
2025

Quick Facts

Location
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Sun, 06/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Mon, 06/30/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
75%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Sreekumari.K vs Thulasi et al regarding temporary injunction
ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-I
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Padmini.A vs Shiju.A regarding Permanent prohibitory injunction
THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-RCC
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Sunilkumar. K.V vs Rajeev kumar et al regarding temporary injunction
ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-I
Injunction Plaintiff Won
Case between Sajikumar vs Ramani et al regarding injunction application.
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-II
Injunction Defendant Won
Case between Jayasree C.R vs Rajendran.C.V regarding Mandatory Injunction
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-II
Injunction Plaintiff Won