Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS.No.1450 /2023

Case between M.K. Sajith Kumar vs Padmakumar P.G regarding court fee

Court
THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Judge
Sri. Mithun Gopi.G.S
Order Date
2025-03-25
Duration
Case Code No.
1450
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

M.K. Sajith Kumar is the plaintiff against Padmakumar P.G in a suit concerning the remittance of balance court fee. The court rejected the plaint due to the lack of application for time to remit the court fee.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court rejected the plaint due to the absence of a remittance for the balance court fee and no application for an extension of time was filed.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court rejected the plaint due to the absence of a remittance for the balance court fee and no application for an extension of time was filed.
Key Reasoning:
The plaint was rejected based on non-compliance with procedural requirements regarding court fees.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaint was rejected based on non-compliance with procedural requirements regarding court fees.
Supporting Evidence
The court noted the plaintiff did not remit the balance court fee and did not file an application seeking time for remittance.

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
M.K. Sajith Kumar
Party Age
55
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Padmakumar P.G
Party Age
59
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. R.S. Suresh Kumar
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. S.K. Shibu
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Balaram Shaji
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. R. Ajayakumar
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. Suhas Balachandran
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Rejected
Description:
Rejection of the plaint due to non-remittance of balance court fee
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
2023

Quick Facts

Location
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Sat, 03/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Mon, 03/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
80%

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