Leela Etc vs Sivan Sivadasan Advocate - BIJU.A.A — 300105/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section order7. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 04th June 2026.

OS - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KLTR140004852024

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

23-02-2024

Filing Number

300499/2024

Filing Date

23-02-2024

Registration No

300105/2024

Registration Date

23-02-2024

Court

Munsiff Court, Irinjalakuda

Judge

1-Principal Munsiff

Decision Date

04th June 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section order7
Ia/1/2026 Classification : Petition Section Leela EtcSivan Sivadasan
Ia/2/2026 Classification : Application to Receive Documents Section Leela EtcSivan Sivadasan

Petitioner(s)

Leela Etc

Adv. CLETUS THOTTAPPILLY

Jalaja

Adv. CLETUS THOTTAPPILLY

Sheeba Suresh

Adv. CLETUS THOTTAPPILLY

Respondent(s)

Sivan Sivadasan Advocate - BIJU.A.A

Ramya

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Principal Munsiff

04-06-2026

Disposed

06-04-2026

Order/ Judgement

01-04-2026

Defendant/Respondent Evidence

26-03-2026

FOR HEARING

16-03-2026

FOR HEARING

Final Orders / Judgements

04-06-2026
Judgement

Case Summary: OS 105/2024 Court Decision: The suit was dismissed. The court found the plaintiffs failed to prove due execution of the loan agreements and rejected their claim for Rs. 2,20,000 against the defendants. Key Reasoning: The court identified critical evidentiary failures: witnesses could not establish the defendant's signatures on the agreements; the second agreement was ante-dated on stamp paper purchased after its purported execution date; medical records showed the defendant was bedridden during the relevant period; the lead plaintiff inexplicably did not testify despite being competent; and a material defense document was suppressed. These suspicious circumstances, combined with the defendant's categorical denial of the signatures, placed the burden on plaintiffs to prove authenticity, which they failed to discharge under the Indian Evidence Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: OS 105/2024 Court Decision: The suit was dismissed. The court found the plaintiffs failed to prove due execution of the loan agreements and rejected their claim for Rs. 2,20,000 against the defendants. Key Reasoning: The court identified critical evidentiary failures: witnesses could not establish the defendant's signatures on the agreements; the second agreement was ante-dated on stamp paper purchased after its purported execution date; medical records showed the defendant was bedridden during the relevant period; the lead plaintiff inexplicably did not testify despite being competent; and a material defense document was suppressed. These suspicious circumstances, combined with the defendant's categorical denial of the signatures, placed the burden on plaintiffs to prove authenticity, which they failed to discharge under the Indian Evidence Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Munsiff Court, Irinjalakuda All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case