S. Chinna Durai @ Manoj vs Ratnaswami Advocate - Divakaran — 2100010/2022
Case under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section S. 26, O. IV, R. 1. Status: For Additional issues. Next hearing: 05th June 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLID250000352022
Next Hearing
05th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
45/2022
Filing Date
18-03-2022
Registration No
2100010/2022
Registration Date
18-03-2022
Court
Sub Court Devikulam
Judge
1-Sub Judge , Devikulam
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
S. Chinna Durai @ Manoj
Adv. Jijo Thomas
Respondent(s)
Ratnaswami Advocate - Divakaran
S. Balakrishnan
Adv. Divakaran
Rajammal
Dhanalaxmi
Sarojam
Kalamani
Saraswathi
Nagammal
Adv. Divakaran
Latha
Manikandan
Venugopal
Manimuthu
Sandhya
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Sub Judge , Devikulam
For Additional issues
For Additional issues
Notified To
For Additional issues
Notified To
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | For Additional issues | |
| 13-01-2026 | For Additional issues | |
| 24-11-2025 | Notified To | |
| 18-10-2025 | For Additional issues | |
| 23-08-2025 | Notified To |
Interim Orders
Summary: The petition filed under Order 6 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of the CPC seeking to amend the pleadings in Original Suit No. 10/2022 was allowed. The court rejected the respondent's objection that proposed amendments were not mentioned in the supporting affidavit, finding sufficient foundation for the amendments in the affidavit and determining that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent. The court directed that the amendment be carried out as prayed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The petition filed under Order 6 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of the CPC seeking to amend the pleadings in Original Suit No. 10/2022 was allowed. The court rejected the respondent's objection that proposed amendments were not mentioned in the supporting affidavit, finding sufficient foundation for the amendments in the affidavit and determining that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent. The court directed that the amendment be carried out as prayed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts