Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S.92/2022

Case between Najimudheen vs Raji. S. Nair regarding setting aside an exparte decree.

Court
Court of the Munsiff, Varkala
Judge
Sri. ARAVIND. P
Order Date
2025-10-03
Duration
approximately-2 years 8 months
Case Code No.
92
Case Closed
Fri, 10/03/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Najimudheen, the petitioner, seeks to set aside an exparte decree issued against him in a money realization suit. Raji. S. Nair, the respondent, opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner had failed to present sufficient cause for his absence during the original proceedings.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court dismissed Najimudheen's petition to set aside the exparte decree, finding that he failed to provide sufficient reason for his absence in the original proceedings.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Restoration Petition
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed Najimudheen's petition to set aside the exparte decree, finding that he failed to provide sufficient reason for his absence in the original proceedings.
Key Reasoning:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient cause to justify setting aside the exparte decree.
Why Defendant Won:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient cause to justify setting aside the exparte decree.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner must be able to show sufficient cause. Here, the medical certificate produced is not sufficient enough to prove it.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Raji. S. Nair
Party Age
42
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Najimudheen
Party Age
60
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. Thattathumala. S. Anilkumar
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. A. Sabeer
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Rejected
Description:
Petitioner's request to set aside the exparte decree dated 13.01.2023.
Evidence:
So the petition can't be entertained. Point no.1 is found against the petitioner and found in favour of the respondent.
Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Not Decided
Description:
Costs for the respective parties.
Evidence:
Considering the facts and circumstances of the petition, both parties can be directed to suffer their respective costs.

Documents & Evidence

Case Classification

Case Type
Restoration Petition
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiffs Court, Varkala
Common Reasons
Case Code
O.S.
Case Code Year
2022

Quick Facts

Location
Thiruvananthapuram District
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiffs Court, Varkala
Case Filed
Thu, 01/13/2022 - 12:00
Case Closed
Fri, 10/03/2025 - 12:00
From
Mon, 09/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Wed, 12/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
75%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Thomas vs St. Thomas Church Committee et al regarding restoration of file.
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, VARKALA
Restoration Petition Plaintiff Won
Case between Subi vs District Collector et al regarding restoration of Original Suit.
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, VARKALA
Restoration Petition Plaintiff Won
Case between Sarasa.G et al vs Vikraman Unnithan et al regarding Restoration Petition
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, VARKALA
Restoration Petition Defendant Won
Case between Canara Bank vs Nandu et al regarding restoration of suit
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, VARKALA
Restoration Petition Plaintiff Won
Case between John Nirmal Thomas vs Mohanlal et al regarding restoration of the suit
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, VARKALA
Restoration Petition Plaintiff Won