Case Summary
Shan is the plaintiff and Sajeesh Kumar is the defendant in this case regarding the non-remittance of balance court fee. The court ultimately rejected the suit due to the plaintiff's failure to comply with the requirement.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Original Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit was rejected because the plaintiff failed to remit the balance court fee despite being given repeated opportunities.
Key Reasoning:
The suit was rejected due to non-compliance with the balance court fee requirement.
The suit was rejected due to non-compliance with the balance court fee requirement.
Why Defendant Won:
Not available
Not available
Supporting Evidence
It is noted that repeated opportunities granted to the plaintiff to remit balance court fee, Even then balance court fee is not remitted.
Judgment Evidence:
Hence the suit is rejected.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Shan
- Party Age
- 47
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sajeesh Kumar
- Party Age
- 50
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Saj S. Sivan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Smt. B. Chithralekha
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. S.V. Shinu
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Suresh Babu R.
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Rejected
Description:
The suit was rejected due to non-remittance of balance court fee.
Evidence:
Even then balance court fee is not remitted . Hence the suit is rejected.
Documents & Evidence
Case Classification
Case Type
Original Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiffs Court, Varkala
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Shan vs Sajeesh Kumar regarding balance court fee
Case Code Year
Case between Shan vs Sajeesh Kumar regarding balance court fee