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.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNCB210007782023
Next Hearing
30th March 2026
Filing Number
124/2023
Filing Date
27-04-2023
Registration No
135/2023
Registration Date
28-04-2023
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Annur
Judge
1-DISTRICT MUNSIF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ANNUR
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ranganathan
Adv. Ranganathan.M
Respondent(s)
The Sub Registrar, Periyanayaganpalayam Advocate - Government pleader
The Tahsildhar, annur
Adv. Government pleader
The District Collector, Coimbatore
Adv. Government pleader
Hearing History
Judge: 1-DISTRICT MUNSIF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ANNUR
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 02-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 02-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 27-01-2026 | Evidence |
| 06-01-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts