OS. No.1133/2024

Case between Umesh Kumar vs Vishnu.N.Raj regarding the rejection of plaint.

Court

The Court of the Additional Munsiff-III

Judge

Smt.Sreelakshmi. C

Order Date

2025-07-23

Duration

Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Umesh Kumar filed a suit against Vishnu.N.Raj, but the plaintiff was absent during the hearing. The court rejected the plaint due to the non-remittance of the balance court fee and lack of application for extension of time.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won

Interim Order

The court rejected the plaint due to the plaintiff's absence and the failure to remit the balance court fee. No application for extension of time was filed.

Judgment Favored

Defendant

Relief Granted

Case Type

Civil Suit

Final Judgment

The court rejected the plaint due to the plaintiff's absence and the failure to remit the balance court fee. No application for extension of time was filed.

Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff did not appear in court and failed to fulfill procedural requirements.

Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiff did not appear in court and failed to fulfill procedural requirements.

Supporting Evidence

The plaintiff absent, no representation. Balance Court Fee not remitted no application seen filed seeking enlargement of time.

Judgment Evidence:

Hence plaint rejected u/o7 Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: Umesh Kumar
Party Age: 55
Relation: S/o

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Vishnu.N.Raj
Party Age: 35
Relation: S/o

Plaintiffs Documents

Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role: Plaintiff
Advocate Name: Sri. Muhammed Unais.P.
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Plaintiff
Advocate Name: Sri.Rajmuralee Radhakrishnan
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other

Outcome: Rejected

Description:

Suit was found to be lacking due to absence of the plaintiff and no representation.

Evidence: