Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS. No.15/2024

Case between Padmapriya.M vs Sulekha et al regarding rejection of plaint

Court
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Judge
Sri.Mithun Gopi.G.S
Order Date
2025-07-21
Duration
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The case involves Padmapriya.M as the plaintiff and Sulekha along with others as defendants. The plaint was rejected due to the plaintiff's absence and lack of representation.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court rejected the plaint for non-representation by the plaintiff. The absence of a remitted balance court fee contributed to this decision.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Final Judgment
No
The court rejected the plaint for non-representation by the plaintiff. The absence of a remitted balance court fee contributed to this decision.
Key Reasoning:
The plaint was dismissed due to the plaintiff's absence and not filing the necessary documents.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaint was dismissed due to the plaintiff's absence and not filing the necessary documents.
Supporting Evidence
The court noted that the plaintiff was absent and no balance court fee was remitted, 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
Padmapriya.M
Party Age
42
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Sulekha
Party Age
48
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Abdul Rahim
Party Age
22
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Rakhi.S.R
Party Age
34
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Sasiakala
Party Age
52
Relation
D/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. Neyyattinkara P Nagaraj
Appearance Type
Main 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:
the plaint is rejected under Order VII Rule 11(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Documents & Evidence

Case Classification

Case Type
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Padmapriya.M vs Sulekha et al regarding rejection of plaint
Case Code Year
Case between Padmapriya.M vs Sulekha et al regarding rejection of plaint

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
80%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Purushothaman Pillay Divakaran et al vs Deepti Sivan regarding injunction
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Sreedevi vs Mahesh regarding realization of money
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Application in Pauper Suit Defendant Won
Case between Anitha Kumari.L.K et al vs Madhu.S et al regarding an ad-interim injunction.
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF- III
Injunction Plaintiff Won
Case between R.Vijayakumar vs Arun Mohan regarding possession of petition schedule building
Rent Control Court
Rent Control Petition Plaintiff Won
Case between Ashraf Ali vs Badhusha regarding rent control petition
COURT OF RENT CONTROL
Rent Control Petition Defendant Won