Ramesh vs T.Jose and 5 others — 100273/2015
Case under Suits Valuation Act Section VIIRule1CPC. Status: Trial. Next hearing: 08th July 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNCG010011572015
Filing Date
05-Oct-2015
Registration No
100273/2015
Registration Date
05-Oct-2015
Court
Principal District Court, Chengalpet
Judge
1-Principal District Judge
Last updated 14-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Ramesh
Adv. Tr.Natarajan
Respondent(s)
-
1.T.Jose and 5 others
-
2.M.Arujun Das
-
3.Suindarammal
-
4.P.V.Sundaram,
-
5.Paul Rose Builders Pvt Ltd rep by P.R.Paulson
Case History
-
08-Jul-2026
Next hearingPending
-
27-Apr-2026
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
16-Mar-2026
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
05-Feb-2026
Copy of OrderView PDF
Case Summary: 100273/2015 (O.S.No.273/2015) Dr. S. Ramesh's petition (I.A.No.3/2024) to reopen application I.A.No.1/2019 was allowed by the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu on February 5, 2026. The court found Ramesh's reason for reopening—that certified copies cannot verify whether original documents or fraudulent copies were filed in a related 2008 suit—to be bona fide and necessary to serve justice, rejecting the respondent's insufficient objections. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
05-Feb-2026
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
12-Jan-2026
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
17-Dec-2025
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
05-Nov-2025
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
12-Sep-2025
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
30-Jul-2025
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
18-Jun-2025
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
19-Mar-2025
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
21-Feb-2025
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
10-Jan-2025
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
12-Dec-2024
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
27-Nov-2024
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
06-Nov-2024
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
15-Oct-2024
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
27-Sep-2024
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
06-Sep-2024
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
05-Jul-2024
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
15-Apr-2024
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
18-Mar-2024
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
26-Feb-2024
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
22-Jan-2024
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
08-Dec-2023
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
20-Nov-2023
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
30-Oct-2023
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
18-Aug-2023
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
17-Jul-2023
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
05-Jun-2023
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
13-Mar-2023
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
06-Feb-2023
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
05-Dec-2022
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
14-Nov-2022
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
09-Nov-2022
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
12-Oct-2022
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
14-Sep-2022
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
17-Aug-2022
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
15-Jul-2022
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
12-Jul-2022
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
11-Jul-2022
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
22-Jun-2022
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
21-Mar-2022
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
17-Dec-2021
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
25-Oct-2021
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
10-Aug-2021
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
08-Jul-2021
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
08-Jun-2021
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
08-Apr-2021
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
01-Apr-2021
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
15-Feb-2021
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
16-Dec-2020
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
14-Oct-2020
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
31-Aug-2020
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
17-Jul-2020
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
14-May-2020
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
29-Apr-2020
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
17-Apr-2020
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
11-Feb-2020
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
19-Dec-2019
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
04-Oct-2019
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
04-Sep-2019
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
17-Aug-2019
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
26-Jul-2019
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
12-Jul-2019
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
10-Jul-2019
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
30-Apr-2019
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
12-Mar-2019
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
23-Jan-2019
List / Special List
Principal District Judge
-
11-Jan-2019
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
12-Dec-2018
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
12-Nov-2018
List / Special List
Principal District Judge
-
01-Oct-2018
List / Special List
Principal District Judge
-
31-Jul-2018
List / Special List
Principal District Judge
-
28-Apr-2018
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
02-Apr-2018
Issues
Principal District Judge
-
02-Mar-2018
Issues
Principal District Judge
-
14-Feb-2018
Written Statement
Principal District Judge
-
14-Nov-2017
Issues
Principal District Judge
-
12-Oct-2017
Issues
Principal District Judge
-
11-Sep-2017
Steps
Principal District Judge
-
11-Aug-2017
Steps
Principal District Judge
-
19-Jun-2017
Written Statement
Principal District Judge
-
17-Apr-2017
Written Statement
Principal District Judge
-
16-Mar-2017
Written Statement
Principal District Judge
-
08-Feb-2017
Written Statement
Principal District Judge
-
16-Dec-2016
Written Statement
Principal District Judge
-
07-Nov-2016
Written Statement
Principal District Judge
-
05-Oct-2016
Written Statement
Principal District Judge
-
15-Sep-2016
Issue of Service
Principal District Judge
-
21-Jul-2016
Issue of Service
Principal District Judge
-
17-Jun-2016
Issue of Service
Principal District Judge
-
15-Apr-2016
Issue of Service
Principal District Judge
-
03-Mar-2016
Issue of Service
Principal District Judge
-
05-Feb-2016
Issue of Service
Principal District Judge
-
24-Nov-2015
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
05-Oct-2015
Case filed
Registration No. 100273/2015
Case Summary: 100273/2015 (O.S.No.273/2015) Dr. S. Ramesh's petition (I.A.No.3/2024) to reopen application I.A.No.1/2019 was allowed by the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu on February 5, 2026. The court found Ramesh's reason for reopening—that certified copies cannot verify whether original documents or fraudulent copies were filed in a related 2008 suit—to be bona fide and necessary to serve justice, rejecting the respondent's insufficient objections. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts