Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS.1287/2022

Case between Pradeep. S vs Muhammed Ismail et al regarding payment for additional work on an apartment

Court
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-II
Judge
Smt. Sincy Jacob
Order Date
2025-11-25
Duration
approximately-3 years 5 months
Case Code No.
1287
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Pradeep. S, a designer, filed a petition against defendants Muhammed Ismail and Shyla Ismail for pending payments of ₹ 2,09,154 for additional work done on their apartment. The defendants disputed the payment, claiming the plaintiff did not complete the work as per the agreement.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The petition was allowed, directing the defendants to furnish security for ₹ 2,09,514 or face attachment of their apartment. No costs were ordered.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Defendants/counter petitioners directed to furnish security for Rs.2,09,514
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The petition was allowed, directing the defendants to furnish security for ₹ 2,09,514 or face attachment of their apartment. No costs were ordered.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The petitioner established a clear claim for payment due under the contract.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The petitioner established a clear claim for payment due under the contract.
Supporting Evidence
The contention of the petitioner is that, he was employed as designer for designing the plaint schedule apartment. It is further submitted that he had given Exhibit A1 Estimate and in pursuant to the same Ext.A3 agreement was entered into between plaintiff and defendants.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the petition is allowed as follows: 1. The defendants/counter petitioners are directed to furnish security for Rs.2,09,514/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Fourteen only) within a period of 30 days or else to show cause as to why an attachment shall not be ordered against the property mentioned below.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Pradeep. S
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Muhammed Ismail
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Shyla Ismail
Plaintiffs Documents
Estimate, Agreement, Tax invoices, Work status
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Smt. Bindu Sankara pillai
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. V.S. Vishambaran
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Defendants directed to furnish security for Rs. 2,09,514/- or face attachment.
Evidence:
The petition is allowed as follows: The defendants/counter petitioners are directed to furnish security for Rs. 2,09,514/- within a period of 30 days or else to show cause as to why an attachment shall not be ordered against the property.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Estimate
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Estimate provided by the petitioner for the work to be done.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Estimate
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Additional estimate provided by the petitioner.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Agreement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Agreement between the plaintiff and defendants regarding the work.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Tax Invoices
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Invoices related to work done for the defendants.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Work status
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Status report on the work completed by the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A5

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
OS.
Case Code Year
2022

Quick Facts

Location
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Fri, 04/08/2022 - 12:00
Case Closed
From
Sat, 11/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Sun, 11/30/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
85%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Sangeetha et al vs Girija Ity et al regarding impleading additional defendants.
ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between N. Krishnankutty vs Sunil.S regarding securing property
COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-I
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Murali kumar vs Subramaya pillai et al regarding compromise petition.
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-II
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Sreekumari.K vs Thulasi et al regarding temporary injunction
ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-I
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Padmini.A vs Shiju.A regarding Permanent prohibitory injunction
THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-RCC
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won