Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS. No.568/2022

Case between Sunil vs Sarin, Anitha, Jyolsnika regarding rejection of plaint

Court
COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-III
Judge
Smt.Sreelakshmi.C
Order Date
2025-03-19
Duration
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiff Sunil was absent during the hearing, whereas the defendants were represented. The court rejected the plaint due to the plaintiff's absence and failure to remit the court fee.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The plaint was rejected due to the absence of the plaintiff and the failure to remit the required court fee.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The plaint was rejected due to the absence of the plaintiff and the failure to remit the required court fee.
Key Reasoning:
The plaint was rejected as the plaintiff failed to appear and did not pay the necessary court fees.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaint was rejected as the plaintiff failed to appear and did not pay the necessary court fees.
Supporting Evidence
The plaint was rejected as the plaintiff failed to appear and no balance court fee was remitted.

Judgment Evidence:

Hence plaint rejected under order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Sunil
Party Age
55
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Sarin
Party Age
50
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Anitha
Party Age
57
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Jyolsnika
Party Age
79
Relation
D/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. V.Bhuvanendran Nair
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. R. Raveendran Nair
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. R.Vidyadharan
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:
Hence plaint rejected under order VII Rule 11 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 Sunil vs Sarin, Anitha, Jyolsnika regarding rejection of plaint
Case Code Year
Case between Sunil vs Sarin, Anitha, Jyolsnika regarding rejection of plaint

Quick Facts

Location
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Sat, 03/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Mon, 03/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
75%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases

Case between Sabu Bhaskaran vs M/s Ambuja Industries et al regarding suit not pressed.
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-III
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Vidhu vs Shantha et al regarding dismissal for default
THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-III
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Geo Expert Pvt Ltd. vs Justin.V.S regarding dismissal of suit
COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-III
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Mithun John Mathew vs Grama Seva Samithy Grandhasala regarding mediation agreement.
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between M.V. Shafi, M.V. Shanavas vs M M. Vahabudeen, M.V. Shaji, M.V. Shereef regarding declaration of property partitions
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Defendant Won