Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS.No.1389 /2019

Case between Santhakumary vs A. James Fernandez regarding rejection of plaint

Court
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Judge
Sri. Mithun Gopi.G.S
Order Date
2025-01-21
Duration
Case Code No.
1389
Case Closed
Tue, 01/21/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The case involves plaintiffs Santhakumary and Bindu against the defendant A. James Fernandez regarding the rejection of a plaint for lack of court fee and proper application. The court found that no balance court fee was remitted and ruled on this matter.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The plaint was rejected due to non-payment of the court fee and failure to file an application. The court did not find any merit to allow the plaint to proceed.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The plaint was rejected due to non-payment of the court fee and failure to file an application. The court did not find any merit to allow the plaint to proceed.
Key Reasoning:
The plaint was rejected based on the failure to remit the balance court fee as required by the law.
Why Defendant Won:
Not available
Supporting Evidence
No balance court fee seen remitted. No application filed.

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
Santhakumary
Party Age
68
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Bindu
Party Age
45
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
A. James Fernandez
Party Age
72
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. B. Vasudevan Nair
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. K. Jayaprasad
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Rejected
Description:
The plaint was rejected due to no balance court fee remitted and no application filed.
Evidence:
No balance court fee seen remitted. No application filed. 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
OS.NO.
Case Code Year
2019

Quick Facts

Location
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Case Closed
Tue, 01/21/2025 - 12:00
From
Wed, 01/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Fri, 01/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
85%

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