M L Gnanadasan vs J Mary Magdalene and 2 others — 194/2022

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 22. Status: Part Heard. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.

Part Heard Next hearing 15-Jun-2026

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNCG010017572022

Filing Number

644/2022

Filing Date

29-Mar-2022

Registration No

194/2022

Registration Date

18-Apr-2022

Court

Principal District Court, Chengalpet

Judge

3-Addl. District Judge

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 22

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M L Gnanadasan

    Adv. Chandrasekar B A

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.J Mary Magdalene and 2 others

  2. 2.Melita Juliet

  3. 3.Felishia Susan

Case History

  1. 15-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    Part Heard

    Addl. District Judge

  3. 16-Mar-2026

    Part Heard

    Addl. District Judge

  4. 20-Feb-2026

    Part Heard

    Addl. District Judge

  5. 30-Jan-2026

    Part Heard

    Addl. District Judge

  6. 19-Dec-2025

    Part Heard

    Addl. District Judge

  7. 17-Nov-2025

    Part Heard

    Addl. District Judge

  8. 10-Oct-2025

    Part Heard

    Addl. District Judge

  9. 08-Sep-2025

    Part Heard

    Addl. District Judge

  10. 22-Aug-2025

    Part Heard

    Addl. District Judge

  11. 04-Aug-2025

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

    Case Summary: OS.No.194/2022 Petitioner: M L Gnanadasan | Respondents: J Mary Magdalene and 2 others, Melita Juliet and Felishia Susan | Date: 04.08.2025 The petitioner's affidavit testimony in Tamil describes a money dispute where he claims to have lent ₹12,50,000 to the respondent in installments over 2 years (around 2014-2016), which the respondent allegedly failed to repay. The petitioner disputes the respondent's claim that a property was offered as collateral and contests various procedural and factual assertions made by the respondent. The court's final order on the petition is not clearly stated in the document provided—only the petitioner's detailed counter-arguments are recorded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  12. 04-Aug-2025

    Part Heard

    Addl. District Judge

  13. 14-Jul-2025

    Part Heard

    Addl. District Judge

  14. 28-Apr-2025

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  15. 28-Apr-2025

    Part Heard

    Addl. District Judge

  16. 17-Mar-2025

    Trial

    Addl. District Judge

  17. 24-Jan-2025

    Trial

    Addl. District Judge

  18. 28-Nov-2024

    Trial

    Addl. District Judge

  19. 03-Oct-2024

    Trial

    Addl. District Judge

  20. 05-Aug-2024

    Trial

    Addl. District Judge

  21. 05-Jul-2024

    Trial

    Addl. District Judge

  22. 01-Apr-2024

    Issues

    Addl. District Judge

  23. 22-Mar-2024

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Addl. District Judge

  24. 19-Jan-2024

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Addl. District Judge

  25. 16-Oct-2023

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Addl. District Judge

  26. 31-Aug-2023

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Addl. District Judge

  27. 28-Jun-2023

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Addl. District Judge

  28. 18-Apr-2023

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Addl. District Judge

  29. 27-Jan-2023

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Addl. District Judge

  30. 28-Nov-2022

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Addl. District Judge

  31. 19-Sep-2022

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Addl. District Judge

  32. 16-Aug-2022

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Addl. District Judge

  33. 21-Jun-2022

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Addl. District Judge

  34. 18-Apr-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  35. 29-Mar-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 194/2022

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: OS.No.194/2022 Petitioner: M L Gnanadasan | Respondents: J Mary Magdalene and 2 others, Melita Juliet and Felishia Susan | Date: 04.08.2025 The petitioner's affidavit testimony in Tamil describes a money dispute where he claims to have lent ₹12,50,000 to the respondent in installments over 2 years (around 2014-2016), which the respondent allegedly failed to repay. The petitioner disputes the respondent's claim that a property was offered as collateral and contests various procedural and factual assertions made by the respondent. The court's final order on the petition is not clearly stated in the document provided—only the petitioner's detailed counter-arguments are recorded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case