A. Natesan vs P. Muthu — 100685/2008
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section O 7 R 1. Status: Steps. Next hearing: 19th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNCB010003842008
Next Hearing
19th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
110068/2008
Filing Date
21-08-2008
Registration No
100685/2008
Registration Date
21-08-2008
Court
Principal District Court, Coimbatore
Judge
1-Principal District Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
A. Natesan
Respondent(s)
P. Muthu
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District Judge
Steps
Steps
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 24-04-2026 | Steps | |
| 16-04-2026 | Steps | |
| 10-04-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending | |
| 02-04-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending | |
| 25-03-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
Interim Orders
Summary The petition filed by A. Natesan under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking to implead four proposed parties (A. Stanley Felix, J. Senthil Kumar, D. Meena, and M/s. Kotax Mahindra Bank) as Defendants 4 to 7 in the original suit (O.S. No. 685/2008) was ALLOWED. The court ordered that the proposed parties be impleaded as additional defendants in the main suit to ensure complete adjudication of all issues, particularly regarding alleged subsequent property transactions that the plaintiff contends are void and not binding upon him, and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The petition filed by A. Natesan under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking to implead four proposed parties (A. Stanley Felix, J. Senthil Kumar, D. Meena, and M/s. Kotax Mahindra Bank) as Defendants 4 to 7 in the original suit (O.S. No. 685/2008) was ALLOWED. The court ordered that the proposed parties be impleaded as additional defendants in the main suit to ensure complete adjudication of all issues, particularly regarding alleged subsequent property transactions that the plaintiff contends are void and not binding upon him, and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts