Case Summary
The case involves Union Bank Of India as the plaintiff and Manikandan.D along with M/s Devi Store as the defendants. The plaintiff was absent and the court rejected the suit for non-remittance of the balance court fee.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court rejected the plaintiff's suit due to the absence of the plaintiff and the non-remittance of the balance court fee.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff was absent and failed to remit the balance court fee.
The plaintiff was absent and failed to remit the balance court fee.
Why Defendant Won:
Not available
Not available
Supporting Evidence
Plaintiff absent, represented. No Balance Court Fee seen remitted.
Judgment Evidence:
The Suit is having been finally heard on 05.04.2025 and the court on same day delivered the following... Plaint is rejected for non remittance of Balance Court Fee.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Union Bank Of India
- Relation
- Represented by
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Manikandan.D
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- M/s Devi Store
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri.R.Jagadish Kumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri.Midhun Sree Mohan.V
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri.Bejoy.M.S.Raj
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Rejected
Description:
The plaint is rejected for non-remittance of Balance Court Fee.
Evidence:
Plaint is rejected for non remittance of Balance Court Fee.
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