Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S. 354/2022

Case between Sarojam vs R. S. Gandhi regarding specific performance of an agreement for sale

Court
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, VARKALA
Judge
Sri. ARAVIND. P.
Order Date
2025-01-17
Duration
Case Code No.
354
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The petitioner Sarojam seeks to amend her plaint to include her readiness and willingness to perform her part of a sale agreement with the respondent R. S. Gandhi. The defendant argues that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to fulfill her obligations under the contract.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The petition by the plaintiff Sarojam to amend her plaint has been allowed by the court. The amendment is crucial for the proper disposal of the suit.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
The petitioner is directed to carry out the amendment sought in the petition within seven days from the date of this order.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The petition by the plaintiff Sarojam to amend her plaint has been allowed by the court. The amendment is crucial for the proper disposal of the suit.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The petitioner is entitled to incorporate her pleading regarding readiness and willingness to perform the sale agreement.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The petitioner is entitled to incorporate her pleading regarding readiness and willingness to perform the sale agreement.
Supporting Evidence
It is important to note that the suit is one for getting a decree for specific performance of contract entered into between the petitioner and the respondent. Here, even if the present amendment is allowed, no prejudice will be caused to the respondent.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, petition is allowed as follows: 1. The petitioner is directed to carry out the amendment sought in the petition within seven days from the date of this order. 2. No order as to costs.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Sarojam
Party Age
80
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
R. S. Gandhi
Party Age
74
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. A. G. Syamkumar
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri K. Rajagopal
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The petitioner is directed to carry out the amendment sought in the petition within seven days from the date of this order.
Evidence:
The petitioner is directed to carry out the amendment sought in the petition within seven days from the date of this order.
Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Not Decided
Description:
Cost claims were mentioned but no specific order was made.
Evidence:
Hence this point is found accordingly.

Documents & Evidence

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiffs Court, Varkala
Common Reasons
Readiness and willingness to perform contract
Case Code
O.S.
Case Code Year
2022

Quick Facts

Location
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiffs Court, Varkala
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Wed, 01/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Wed, 04/30/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
85%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Sajitha. M. vs Sasi et al regarding temporary injunction.
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, VARKALA
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Balachandran et al vs Sajith et al regarding ad-interim injunction
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, VARKALA
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Sarasamma et al vs Sobhana et al regarding temporary injunction for construction
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, VARKALA
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Margaret Solomon Cruz et al vs Mabel James et al regarding declaration of title and injunction
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, VARKALA
Civil Suit Unknown
Case between Sheena vs Anvar et al regarding temporary injunction against illegal business.
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, VARKALA
Civil Suit Defendant Won