M.D.Easwaran vs Sarojini — 104/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 25(d). Disposed: Uncontested--Dismissed on 11th March 2026.

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNCB170001212025

Case disposed

Filing Number

121/2025

Filing Date

26-08-2025

Registration No

104/2025

Registration Date

08-09-2025

Court

District Munsif Court, Sulur

Judge

30-DISTRICT MUNSIF, SULUR

Decision Date

11th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--Dismissed

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 25(d)

Petitioner(s)

M.D.Easwaran

Adv. Kannan.S

Chandra Easwaran

Adv. Kannan.S

Respondent(s)

Sarojini

Velusamy

M/s.Crocus Builders Pvt. Ltd. rep by their power agent M/s. G.Square Realtors Pvt. Ltd.,

M/s Gems Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., rep by power agent M/s.G Square Realtors Pvt. Ltd,

Deep Jyoti Projects Pvt. Ltd., ep by power agent M/s G Square Realtors Pvt. Ltd.

Emaar India Ltd.,rep by power agent M/s.G.Square Realtors Pvt. Ltd.,

Hearing History

Judge: 30-DISTRICT MUNSIF, SULUR

11-03-2026

Disposed

06-02-2026

Batta

08-01-2026

Service Pending-Summon

12-12-2025

Service Pending-Summon

10-11-2025

Service Pending-Summon

Final Orders / Judgements

11-03-2026
Copy of Decree
11-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

Summary: The District Munsif of Sulur dismissed the suit for default on March 11, 2026. The plaintiffs sought to correct the survey number of a property in a 1986 sale deed from S.F.No.95/2AC to S.F.No.95/2C2, but the suit was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to appear, no representation was made, and the defendant's court fee (Bata) remained unpaid despite multiple opportunities granted by the court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The District Munsif of Sulur dismissed the suit for default on March 11, 2026. The plaintiffs sought to correct the survey number of a property in a 1986 sale deed from S.F.No.95/2AC to S.F.No.95/2C2, but the suit was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to appear, no representation was made, and the defendant's court fee (Bata) remained unpaid despite multiple opportunities granted by the court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

District Munsif Court, Sulur All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case