Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS. No.1015/2024

Case between Sanju.M vs Venugopal K.V, Suma.S regarding rejection of plaint

Court
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Judge
Sri.Mithun Gopi.G.S
Order Date
2025-07-23
Duration
Case Closed
Wed, 07/23/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Sanju.M is the plaintiff in this case against Venugopal K.V and Suma.S. The court has rejected the plaint due to the plaintiff's absence and failure to remit the balance court fee.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The plaint was rejected as the plaintiff was absent and no court fees were remitted.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The plaint was rejected as the plaintiff was absent and no court fees were remitted.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff was absent and did not fulfill the requirement to remit the court fee.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiff was absent and did not fulfill the requirement to remit the court fee.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiff absent, no representation. Balance court fee not seen remitted.

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
Sanju.M
Party Age
45
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Venugopal K.V
Party Age
60
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Suma.S
Party Age
53
Relation
W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.Jeena Sekhar
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.Jinumol Varghese
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. N. Anilkumar
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Rejected
Description:
The plaint is rejected due to absence of the plaintiff and non-remittance of balance court fee.
Evidence:
Hence, 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
Case between Sanju.M vs Venugopal K.V, Suma.S regarding rejection of plaint
Case Code Year
Case between Sanju.M vs Venugopal K.V, Suma.S regarding rejection of plaint

Quick Facts

Location
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Case Closed
Wed, 07/23/2025 - 12:00
From
Tue, 07/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Thu, 07/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

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