SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 57532

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANNIE JOHN, J
M S VINAYAN – Appellant
Versus
SUGANDHI    Advocate - N U HARIKRISHNA, ,N U HARIKRISHNA,G SREEKUMAR (CHELUR – Respondent


JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the defendant in P.O.P.No.33/2006 before the 1st Additional Sub Court, Thrissur. The respondent is the plaintiff/ petitioner in the above case. The suit has been filed by the respondent herein for realisation of an amount of Rs.10,60,000/-, being the amount allegedly borrowed by the petitioner. The case of the respondent/ plaintiff is that towards the borrowed amount, the defendant has issued cheque for the same amount, and the same was dishonoured.

2. The respondent has filed the above case as an indigent person for the reason that, she has no “sufficient means” to pay the court fee of Rs.1,04,710/-. The respondent/ plaintiff has filed detailed list of both movable and immovable assets in her possession. She has also stated that she is not having any ornaments or property and had not assigned or purchased any property within a period of three months from the date of petition. A true copy of P.O.P.No.33/2006 pending before the First Additional Sub Court, Thrissur is produced and marked as Ext.P1.

3. The petitioner has filed a detailed counter stating that the respondent is having sufficient income to pay the court fee. The respondent had ornaments in her han

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top