Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS.No.583/2025

Case between Sulaikha Beevi et al vs Thara.L et al regarding status quo as per commission report

Court
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF- III
Judge
Smt.Sreelakshmi.C
Order Date
2025-04-11
Duration
Case Code No.
583
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The case involves plaintiffs Sulaikha Beevi, Abraham M.Abraham, and Thomas Chandy against defendants Thara.L, Prasannan, and Babu regarding the status quo as per the commission report. The court found the defendants absent and proceeded accordingly.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court allowed the status quo as per the commission report due to the absence of the defendants.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Status quo as per commission report
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court allowed the status quo as per the commission report due to the absence of the defendants.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court acted in the interest of justice due to the absence of the defendants.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The court acted in the interest of justice due to the absence of the defendants.
Supporting Evidence
The court noted the defendant was absent even after due service of summons and no objection seen filed.

Judgment Evidence:

I am inclined to allow status quo as per commission report in the interest of justice.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Sulaikha Beevi
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Abraham M.Abraham
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Thomas Chandy
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Thara.L
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Prasannan
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Babu
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Commission report
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.M.R.Anandakuttan
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.Krishnakumar.M
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Status quo as per commission report.
Evidence:
Hence as defendant is called absent even after due service of summons and no objection seen filed, I am inclined to allow status quo as per commission report in the interest of justice.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
The court relied on the commission report to allow status quo.
Reference:

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
2025

Quick Facts

Location
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Tue, 04/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Wed, 04/30/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
75%

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