Ramamoorthy vs Suseela Advocate - Devi Saravanan.P — 344/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O7 R1. Status: Trial. Next hearing: 16th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNCB210016872023
Next Hearing
16th June 2026
Filing Number
353/2023
Filing Date
03-07-2023
Registration No
344/2023
Registration Date
03-07-2023
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Annur
Judge
1-DISTRICT MUNSIF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ANNUR
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ramamoorthy
Adv. Santhamoorthy.R
Respondent(s)
Suseela Advocate - Devi Saravanan.P
Hearing History
Judge: 1-DISTRICT MUNSIF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ANNUR
Trial
Trial
Trial
Trial
Trial
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Trial |
| 16-12-2025 | Trial |
| 23-09-2025 | Trial |
| 24-06-2025 | Trial |
| 25-03-2025 | Trial |
Interim Orders
SUMMARY: The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Annur, dismissed the plaintiff's petition for temporary injunction on July 4, 2024. The plaintiff sought to restrain defendants from preventing his use of a 10-foot wide cart-track through properties in S.F. Nos. 407/1 and 407/2 to access his property in S.F. No. 407/3. The court found insufficient documentary evidence specifically establishing the existence of the disputed cart-track at the eastern extremity of the contested properties and held that consequential relief (injunction) cannot be granted before determining the plaintiff's underlying right through full trial. No costs were imposed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
SUMMARY: The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Annur, dismissed the plaintiff's petition for temporary injunction on July 4, 2024. The plaintiff sought to restrain defendants from preventing his use of a 10-foot wide cart-track through properties in S.F. Nos. 407/1 and 407/2 to access his property in S.F. No. 407/3. The court found insufficient documentary evidence specifically establishing the existence of the disputed cart-track at the eastern extremity of the contested properties and held that consequential relief (injunction) cannot be granted before determining the plaintiff's underlying right through full trial. No costs were imposed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts