Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS.No.115/2023

Case between M/s Vismayas Max Animation Academy vs Ashik Rasaq regarding rejection of plaint

Court
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Judge
Sri.Mithun Gopi.G.S
Order Date
2025-07-21
Duration
Case Code No.
115
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

This case involves M/s Vismayas Max Animation Academy as the plaintiff and Ashik Rasaq as the defendant. The court concluded that the plaint was rejected due to the absence of remitted court fees.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The plaint was rejected due to the lack of remitted court fees. The case did not proceed further.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The plaint was rejected due to the lack of remitted court fees. The case did not proceed further.
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 concluded that no balance court fee was remitted and no application was filed, leading to the rejection of the plaint.

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/s Vismayas Max Animation Academy
Relation
Represented by
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Ashik Rasaq
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.S.Chandra Sekharan Nair
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. Raju George
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. V.N. Gopalakrishnan Nair
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. Udaya Kumar.M.S
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Rejected
Description:
The plaint is rejected under Order VII Rule 11(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure
Evidence:
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
Tue, 07/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Thu, 07/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
100%

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