S Mani vs Ambika and 3 others — 243/2024

Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section 42(a),33(1). Status: IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending. Next hearing: 06th July 2026.

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNCG010019182024

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

Next Hearing

06th July 2026

Filing Number

863/2024

Filing Date

23-04-2024

Registration No

243/2024

Registration Date

29-04-2024

Court

Principal District Court, Chengalpet

Judge

3-Addl. District Judge

Acts & Sections

CodeofCivilProcedure Section 42(a),33(1)

Petitioner(s)

S Mani

Adv. VARADARAJAN K

Respondent(s)

Ambika and 3 others

Pankajammal @ Pankajavalli

G Chandrasekar

Kavitha

Hearing History

Judge: 3-Addl. District Judge

16-04-2026

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

16-03-2026

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

15-12-2025

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

03-11-2025

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

06-10-2025

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

Interim Orders

16-04-2026
Copy of Order

Case Summary: O.S.No.243/2024 The Additional District Judge dismissed defendants Ambika and Pankajammal's petition to reject the plaintiff S Mani's plaint. The court found the suit for specific performance of a property sale agreement disclosed a valid cause of action, was filed within the limitation period, and was not barred by the Commercial Court Act since the transaction involved agricultural property, not a commercial venture. The petition under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed with no cost awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: O.S.No.243/2024 The Additional District Judge dismissed defendants Ambika and Pankajammal's petition to reject the plaintiff S Mani's plaint. The court found the suit for specific performance of a property sale agreement disclosed a valid cause of action, was filed within the limitation period, and was not barred by the Commercial Court Act since the transaction involved agricultural property, not a commercial venture. The petition under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed with no cost awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Principal District Court, Chengalpet All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case