Subramaniam vs M. Rathinamala Advocate - R.Susendhiran — 317/2023

Case under Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 27(c). Status: Ex-Parte Evidence. Next hearing: 04th June 2026.

Ex-Parte Evidence Next hearing 04-Jun-2026 this date has passed

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNCB130003962023

Filing Number

548/2023

Filing Date

04-Dec-2023

Registration No

317/2023

Registration Date

04-Dec-2023

Court

District Munsif Court, Pollachi

Judge

1-District Munsif Court, Pollachi

Last updated 26-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 27(c)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Subramaniam

    Adv. R. Balasubramanian

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.M. Rathinamala Advocate - R.Susendhiran

  2. 2.M. Sittrarasu

    Adv. R.Susendhiran

  3. 3.M. Tamilselvan

    Adv. R.Susendhiran

  4. 4.R. Karpagambigai

    Adv. R.Susendhiran

  5. 5.R. Kumaragurubaran

  6. 6.Arukkani

    Adv. R.Susendhiran

  7. 7.Gandhimathi

    Adv. R.Susendhiran

Case History

  1. 04-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    District Munsif Court, Pollachi

  3. 25-Mar-2026

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    District Munsif Court, Pollachi

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

    Summary: In Civil Suit No. 317/2023 before the Principal District Civil Court, Pollachi, the court examined the plaintiff's witness (Supraniamyam) on March 10, 2026 under Rule 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1969. The witness deposed regarding a sale deed dated June 25, 1989, and various supporting documents (notices, postal acknowledgments, and identity documents) were marked as exhibits. The case was adjourned to allow the defendants' counsel to conduct cross-examination of the witness. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  5. 10-Mar-2026

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    District Munsif Court, Pollachi

  6. 02-Mar-2026

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    District Munsif Court, Pollachi

  7. 12-Feb-2026

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    District Munsif Court, Pollachi

  8. 12-Jan-2026

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    District Munsif Court, Pollachi

  9. 24-Nov-2025

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    District Munsif Court, Pollachi

  10. 29-Oct-2025

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    District Munsif Court, Pollachi

  11. 06-Oct-2025

    Issue of Process

    District Munsif Court, Pollachi

  12. 03-Sep-2025

    Issue of Process

    District Munsif Court, Pollachi

  13. 22-Aug-2025

    Issue of Process

    District Munsif Court, Pollachi

  14. 31-Jul-2025

    Issue of Process

    District Munsif Court, Pollachi

  15. 08-Jul-2025

    Batta

    District Munsif Court, Pollachi

  16. 23-Jun-2025

    IA Pending

    District Munsif Court, Pollachi

  17. 25-Apr-2025

    IA Pending

    District Munsif Court, Pollachi

  18. 11-Mar-2025

    IA Pending

    District Munsif Court, Pollachi

  19. 04-Feb-2025

    IA Pending

    District Munsif Court, Pollachi

  20. 12-Dec-2024

    IA Pending

    District Munsif Court, Pollachi

  21. 30-Sep-2024

    IA Pending

    District Munsif Court, Pollachi

  22. 05-Aug-2024

    IA Pending

    District Munsif Court, Pollachi

  23. 13-Jun-2024

    IA Pending

    District Munsif Court, Pollachi

  24. 26-Apr-2024

    IA Pending

    District Munsif Court, Pollachi

  25. 08-Apr-2024

    IA Pending

    District Munsif Court, Pollachi

  26. 08-Mar-2024

    IA Pending

    District Munsif Court, Pollachi

  27. 29-Jan-2024

    IA Pending

    District Munsif Court, Pollachi

  28. 24-Jan-2024

    IA Pending

    District Munsif Court, Pollachi

  29. 04-Dec-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  30. 04-Dec-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 317/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: In Civil Suit No. 317/2023 before the Principal District Civil Court, Pollachi, the court examined the plaintiff's witness (Supraniamyam) on March 10, 2026 under Rule 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1969. The witness deposed regarding a sale deed dated June 25, 1989, and various supporting documents (notices, postal acknowledgments, and identity documents) were marked as exhibits. The case was adjourned to allow the defendants' counsel to conduct cross-examination of the witness. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case