P.porselvan represented by power of attorney V.Palanisamy vs Vilvarayanallur village panchayat and 7 others Advocate - D1 — 100075/2016
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section VIIRule1ofCPC. Status: Additional Written Statement. Next hearing: 10th July 2026.
OS - Original Suit (Title)
CNR: TNCG130003632016
Next Hearing
10th July 2026
Filing Number
1110075/2016
Filing Date
24-08-2016
Registration No
100075/2016
Registration Date
24-08-2016
Court
Sub Court, Maduranthakam
Judge
1-Subordinate Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
P.porselvan represented by power of attorney V.Palanisamy
Adv. S. Subramanian
Respondent(s)
Vilvarayanallur village panchayat and 7 others Advocate - D1
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Subordinate Judge
Additional Written Statement
Written Statement
Amendment
Amendment
Amendment
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-06-2026 | Additional Written Statement |
| 27-04-2026 | Written Statement |
| 20-04-2026 | Amendment |
| 06-04-2026 | Amendment |
| 16-03-2026 | Amendment |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 100075/2016 Outcome: Petition ALLOWED. The court permitted P. Porselvan to sue defendants 2-8 in representative capacity on behalf of all villagers of Vilvarayanallur Village under Order I Rule 8 CPC, with no costs awarded. Key Facts: Porselvan, the property owner since 2010, sought to sue the village panchayat and others regarding disputed land allegedly used for public functions. Since 2000+ villagers were affected but impractical to implead individually, he requested representative status. Defendants denied willingness to represent others but the court found they were actively opposing on behalf of a larger group. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 100075/2016 Outcome: Petition ALLOWED. The court permitted P. Porselvan to sue defendants 2-8 in representative capacity on behalf of all villagers of Vilvarayanallur Village under Order I Rule 8 CPC, with no costs awarded. Key Facts: Porselvan, the property owner since 2010, sought to sue the village panchayat and others regarding disputed land allegedly used for public functions. Since 2000+ villagers were affected but impractical to implead individually, he requested representative status. Defendants denied willingness to represent others but the court found they were actively opposing on behalf of a larger group. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts