Case Summary
The case involves the Union Bank Of India as the plaintiff and GopiKrishnan and Satheeshkumar.P as defendants. The court rejected the plaint due to absence of both parties during the hearing.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court found both parties absent and decided to reject the plaint.
Key Reasoning:
Plaintiff was absent and no representation was made.
Plaintiff was absent and no representation was made.
Why Defendant Won:
Plaintiff was absent and no representation was made.
Plaintiff was absent and no representation was made.
Supporting Evidence
No representation by the plaintiff.
Judgment Evidence:
Plaint is rejected. Pronounced in the open court on this the 16th day of January 2025.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Union Bank Of India
- Relation
- Represented by
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- GopiKrishnan
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Satheeshkumar.P
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Adv.Sri.R.Jagadish Kumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Adv.Sri.Deepesh.A.S
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Gopika Prakash
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Souparnika.R.J
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Rejected
Description:
The plaintiff's case was rejected due to absence of representation.
Evidence:
Plaint is rejected.
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
OS.NO.
Case Code Year
2022