Omana Jayan vs Jisso.K.Anand Advocate - AVANEESH V N — 100050/2016
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26OrderVII. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 30th March 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLKT150000862016
Filing Number
101721/2016
Filing Date
09-03-2016
Registration No
100050/2016
Registration Date
09-03-2016
Court
Munsiff Court, Ettumanoor
Judge
1-MUNSIFF, ETTUMANOOR
Decision Date
30th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Omana Jayan
Adv. E.M.Suresh
Respondent(s)
Jisso.K.Anand Advocate - AVANEESH V N
Hearing History
Judge: 1-MUNSIFF, ETTUMANOOR
Disposed
Order/Judgement
Call On
For Hearing
For Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 28-03-2026 | Order/Judgement |
| 27-03-2026 | Call On |
| 26-03-2026 | For Hearing |
| 21-03-2026 | For Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: OS 50/2016 - Omana Jayan v. Jisso K. Anand Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs. 6,50,000 based on a dishonored cheque. The court found that the plaintiff failed to plead and prove her case, noting material contradictions between her pleadings and evidence regarding the underlying transaction. Key Reasoning: The defendant established through consistent pleadings and documentary evidence that he had transferred Rs. 16,80,000 to the plaintiff's joint account as settlement for a real estate business transaction with her husband, making no further amount due. The plaintiff's proof affidavit introduced new facts (regarding an alleged Rs. 7,00,000 loan) that were neither pleaded in the original plaint nor supported by documentary evidence, violating the principle that parties cannot travel beyond their pleadings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: OS 50/2016 - Omana Jayan v. Jisso K. Anand Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs. 6,50,000 based on a dishonored cheque. The court found that the plaintiff failed to plead and prove her case, noting material contradictions between her pleadings and evidence regarding the underlying transaction. Key Reasoning: The defendant established through consistent pleadings and documentary evidence that he had transferred Rs. 16,80,000 to the plaintiff's joint account as settlement for a real estate business transaction with her husband, making no further amount due. The plaintiff's proof affidavit introduced new facts (regarding an alleged Rs. 7,00,000 loan) that were neither pleaded in the original plaint nor supported by documentary evidence, violating the principle that parties cannot travel beyond their pleadings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts