Ranganathan vs The Sub Registrar, Periyanayaganpalayam Advocate - Government pleader — 135/2023

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O7R1. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 30th March 2026.

Evidence Next hearing 30-Mar-2026 this date has passed

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNCB210007782023

Filing Number

124/2023

Filing Date

27-Apr-2023

Registration No

135/2023

Registration Date

28-Apr-2023

Court

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Annur

Judge

1-District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Annur

Last updated 19-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section O7R1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Ranganathan

    Adv. Ranganathan.M

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The Sub Registrar, Periyanayaganpalayam Advocate - Government pleader

  2. 2.The Tahsildhar, annur

    Adv. Government pleader

  3. 3.The District Collector, Coimbatore

    Adv. Government pleader

Case History

  1. 30-Mar-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 06-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Annur

  3. 02-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Annur

  4. 02-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Annur

  5. 27-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Annur

  6. 06-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Annur

  7. 09-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Annur

  8. 28-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Annur

  9. 28-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Annur

  10. 16-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Annur

  11. 12-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Annur

  12. 05-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Annur

  13. 08-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Annur

  14. 23-Jun-2025

    Trial

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Annur

  15. 03-Jun-2025

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

    Case Summary In civil case No. 135/2023, the court examined the witness (PW-1) Ranganathan regarding a dispute over the father's name variations in official documents. The witness testified that his father's name appears as "Kaliswamy," "Kaliyanan," and "Kaliyappan" in different records (Aadhaar, ration card, school certificate, EB department, and death/succession certificates), but he could not produce documentary evidence to prove these are variations of the same person. The court found the case lacks sufficient evidence to proceed and dismissed it accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  16. 03-Jun-2025

    Trial

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Annur

  17. 08-Apr-2025

    Trial

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Annur

  18. 28-Feb-2025

    Additional Issues

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Annur

  19. 24-Feb-2025

    Additional Issues

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Annur

  20. 06-Jan-2025

    Additional Issues

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Annur

  21. 26-Nov-2024

    Additional Issues

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Annur

  22. 11-Nov-2024

    Additional Issues

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Annur

  23. 29-Oct-2024

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Annur

  24. 30-Sep-2024

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Annur

  25. 30-Aug-2024

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Annur

  26. 13-Aug-2024

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Annur

  27. 05-Aug-2024

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Annur

  28. 23-Jul-2024

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Annur

  29. 02-Jul-2024

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Annur

  30. 26-Jun-2024

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Annur

  31. 11-Jun-2024

    Trial

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Annur

  32. 29-Apr-2024

    Trial

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Annur

  33. 15-Mar-2024

    Issues

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Annur

  34. 19-Feb-2024

    Issues

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Annur

  35. 23-Jan-2024

    Written Statement

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Annur

  36. 22-Dec-2023

    Written Statement

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Annur

  37. 11-Dec-2023

    Written Statement

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Annur

  38. 28-Nov-2023

    Written Statement

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Annur

  39. 27-Nov-2023

    Written Statement

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Annur

  40. 21-Nov-2023

    Written Statement

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Annur

  41. 09-Oct-2023

    Written Statement

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Annur

  42. 19-Sep-2023

    Written Statement

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Annur

  43. 08-Sep-2023

    Written Statement

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Annur

  44. 01-Aug-2023

    Written Statement

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Annur

  45. 03-Jul-2023

    Written Statement

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Annur

  46. 07-Jun-2023

    Service Pending

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Annur

  47. 28-Apr-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  48. 27-Apr-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 135/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary In civil case No. 135/2023, the court examined the witness (PW-1) Ranganathan regarding a dispute over the father's name variations in official documents. The witness testified that his father's name appears as "Kaliswamy," "Kaliyanan," and "Kaliyappan" in different records (Aadhaar, ration card, school certificate, EB department, and death/succession certificates), but he could not produce documentary evidence to prove these are variations of the same person. The court found the case lacks sufficient evidence to proceed and dismissed it accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case