Jayakumar vs Vincent Raj — 26/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26 Order VII Rule 1and 2. Disposed: Uncontested--Ex-Parte Decree on 25th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNKK150003162024
e-Filing Number
15-03-2024
Filing Number
52/2024
Filing Date
16-03-2024
Registration No
26/2024
Registration Date
16-03-2024
Court
Sub Court, Eraniel
Judge
1-Sub Judge
Decision Date
25th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Ex-Parte Decree
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Jayakumar
Adv. C. Prabhu, S. BRITTO SINGH
Respondent(s)
Vincent Raj
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Sub Judge
Disposed
Judgement
Ex-Parte Evidence
Service Pending-Substituted Service
Issue of Service
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 25-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 18-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 11-03-2026 | Ex-Parte Evidence |
| 02-03-2026 | Service Pending-Substituted Service |
| 04-02-2026 | Issue of Service |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Subordinate Court of Eraniel held the defendant liable to repay Rs. 3,05,918/- to the plaintiff, representing a loan of Rs. 3,00,000 borrowed on 22-08-2023 plus interest, after the defendant's cheque for the amount bounced due to insufficient funds. The court found the plaintiff's claims sufficiently proven through documentary evidence (original cheque and bank return memo) and the defendant's failure to appear, ordering repayment within two months with interest at 7% per annum until decree and 5% thereafter. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The Subordinate Court of Eraniel held the defendant liable to repay Rs. 3,05,918/- to the plaintiff, representing a loan of Rs. 3,00,000 borrowed on 22-08-2023 plus interest, after the defendant's cheque for the amount bounced due to insufficient funds. The court found the plaintiff's claims sufficiently proven through documentary evidence (original cheque and bank return memo) and the defendant's failure to appear, ordering repayment within two months with interest at 7% per annum until decree and 5% thereafter. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts