Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS. No.1692/2018

Case between M.Ganesan et al vs Faisilimon.T.B. regarding plaint rejection

Court
ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-III
Judge
Smt.Sreelakshmi.C
Order Date
2025-08-05
Duration
Case Closed
Tue, 08/05/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiffs include M.Ganesan and his family members, while the defendant is Faisilimon.T.B. The case involves the rejection of a plaint due to the absence of the plaintiffs and failure to remit balance court fees.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The plaint was rejected due to the plaintiffs' absence and non-payment of the required court fees.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The plaint was rejected due to the plaintiffs' absence and non-payment of the required court fees.
Key Reasoning:
Plaintiff was absent and did not remit balance court fee.
Why Defendant Won:
Plaintiff was absent and did not remit balance court fee.
Supporting Evidence
Plaintiff absent, no representation. No Balance Court fee remitted.

Judgment Evidence:

Hence plaint rejected u/o 7 Rule 11 Code of the Civil Procedure.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
M.Ganesan
Party Age
57
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Santhakumari
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Vishnu Ganesh
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Vishnu Priya
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Faisilimon.T.B.
Party Age
41
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Smt. Valsala Sadanandan
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. S.K.Pradeep
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Rejected
Description:
Plaint rejected due to absence of the plaintiff and no balance court fee remitted.
Evidence:
Hence plaint rejected u/o 7 Rule 11 Code of the 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 M.Ganesan et al vs Faisilimon.T.B. regarding plaint rejection
Case Code Year
Case between M.Ganesan et al vs Faisilimon.T.B. regarding plaint rejection

Quick Facts

Location
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Case Closed
Tue, 08/05/2025 - 12:00
From
Fri, 08/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Sun, 08/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
85%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

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
Case between Purushothaman Pillay Divakaran et al vs Deepti Sivan regarding injunction
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Sreenath.S vs Thankarajan et al regarding dismissal of suit as not pressed
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Sindhu.S et al vs Lalitha et al regarding withdrawal of suit
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Vanitha Sureshbabu Thilak vs Babu Chettiyar et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won