M.Sivagurunathan vs S.Sivagurunathan Advocate - Mr.K.Sethupathi — 325/2021
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section 22. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 29th April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNCB130003702021
Next Hearing
29th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
369/2021
Filing Date
21-10-2021
Registration No
325/2021
Registration Date
24-11-2021
Court
District Munsif Court, Pollachi
Judge
1-District Munsif Court, Pollachi
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
M.Sivagurunathan
Adv. Su.Sendhilkumar
Respondent(s)
S.Sivagurunathan Advocate - Mr.K.Sethupathi
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif Court, Pollachi
Evidence
Appearance
Appearance
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 22-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 24-03-2026 | Appearance | |
| 10-03-2026 | Appearance | |
| 03-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 16-02-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Case Number: A.V. No. 325/2021 Court: Principal District Civil Court, Pallachy Date: 22.04.2026 Outcome: The court recorded the cross-examination of the defendant (shop owner Sivagurunathan) and found that while the plaintiff (tenant) claimed to have paid reduced rent of ₹400 with advance ₹200,000 under a 2010 renewed agreement, the defendant contended the rent was ₹2,500 with ₹8,000 advance per the original agreement. The court determined the plaintiff had paid arrears up to the 3-year limitation period (₹69,600) to the court and rejected the defendant's claim for additional relief, ruling the plaintiff's obligations were satisfied. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Case Number: A.V. No. 325/2021 Court: Principal District Civil Court, Pallachy Date: 22.04.2026 Outcome: The court recorded the cross-examination of the defendant (shop owner Sivagurunathan) and found that while the plaintiff (tenant) claimed to have paid reduced rent of ₹400 with advance ₹200,000 under a 2010 renewed agreement, the defendant contended the rent was ₹2,500 with ₹8,000 advance per the original agreement. The court determined the plaintiff had paid arrears up to the 3-year limitation period (₹69,600) to the court and rejected the defendant's claim for additional relief, ruling the plaintiff's obligations were satisfied. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts