| Niyamam AI

Displaying 12016 - 12020 of 15270

District

Court Establishment

Public case category

Case Summary

Parties/Entities involved(eg: Bank, Panchayath, temple, Mosque etc.)

Case between Secratary vs Suresh Dararuparambil et al regarding debt

Execution Proceedings

EP 451/2018

Malappuram

2019-11-22

0 years 11 months 1 days

Unknown

View Full Details

Case between K.Abdul Hameed et al vs V.Aboobacker et al regarding Suit Dismissal for Default

Interlocutory Application

ORIGINAL SUIT NO: 81/2015

2019-03-05

Plaintiff

View Full Details

Case between M/s. Bharathi Auto Finance vs Noufal regarding money transaction

Money Recovery Suit

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 275 OF 2018

2019-11-21

Plaintiff

View Full Details

Case between Haniya et al vs Muhammed regarding Injunction

Injunction

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 328 OF 2014

2019-11-21

5 years 1 day

Plaintiff

View Full Details

Case between Secratary vs Asharaf Pamayadamban et al regarding EP 47/2019

EP 47/2019

Tirur, Malappuram

2019-11-21

0 years, 9 months, 15 days

Unknown

View Full Details

Historical Outcome Trends

Based on analysis of similar cases in Kerala Munsif Courts

Disclaimer: This is informational analysis based on historical data, not legal advice. Every case is unique. Consult a qualified lawyer for personalized guidance.

51%

Success Rate for Plaintiff

Based on 15,270 similar cases

Key Insights

Documentary Evidence Strength High Impact

Average Case Duration 3.3 years

Settlement Likelihood 12%

Common Winning Factors:

Commission Report (in 807 cases)
Lawyer Notice (in 682 cases)
Sale deed (in 574 cases)
Postal receipt (in 543 cases)
Tax receipt (in 530 cases)

Plaintiff Won: 7721
Defendant Won: 6453

6453

Cases Failed

Primary Reasons

22%

Top Reason Occurrence

Common Failure Reasons

Learn why cases like yours failed so you can avoid mistakes

Default Due to Lack of Evidence

Plaintiffs often failed to present adequate evidence proving the means of the respondents to pay debts.

Found in 22 cases (22%) Medium Impact

Default Judgment for Non-Payment of Batta

Many cases were dismissed as plaintiffs did not pay the necessary batta for processing their petitions.

Found in 18 cases (18%) Medium Impact

Failure to Take Required Steps

Plaintiffs frequently did not take necessary steps like issuing notices, leading to case dismissals.

Found in 16 cases (16%) Medium Impact

Absence of the Petitioner

In numerous cases, the petitioner was absent from court, resulting in automatic dismissals.

Found in 14 cases (14%) Low Impact

How to Strengthen Your Case

Gather all documentary evidence (title deeds, receipts, contracts) before filing
Ensure filing is within limitation period - consult lawyer about deadlines
Prepare witnesses thoroughly and ensure their statements are consistent
Maintain complete chain of ownership documents with no gaps
Follow all procedural requirements and court timelines strictly

Need More Details?

View complete analysis of failed cases in your category

Kerala Civil Court Judgments Database

Public User

Legal Professional

similar cases search

Historical Outcome Trends

Key Insights

Common Winning Factors:

Common Failure Reasons

Default Due to Lack of Evidence

Default Judgment for Non-Payment of Batta

Failure to Take Required Steps

Absence of the Petitioner

How to Strengthen Your Case

Need More Details?