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
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
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
Disposed
Order/ Judgement
Defendant/Respondent Evidence
FOR HEARING
FOR HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts