Santhanakumar vs The Thasildar, Madurantakam Advocate - Exparte — 35/2022
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 27c. Status: For further Proceedings. Next hearing: 15th July 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNCG140000632022
Next Hearing
15th July 2026
Filing Number
72/2022
Filing Date
25-03-2022
Registration No
35/2022
Registration Date
29-03-2022
Court
District Munsif Court, Maduranthakam
Judge
2-District Munsif
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Santhanakumar
Adv. Subramanian.S
Respondent(s)
The Thasildar, Madurantakam Advocate - Exparte
The Revenue Divisional officer
The District collector
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District Munsif
For further Proceedings
Steps
Steps
Amendment
Amendment
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-06-2026 | For further Proceedings |
| 15-04-2026 | Steps |
| 16-03-2026 | Steps |
| 11-03-2026 | Amendment |
| 18-02-2026 | Amendment |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: I.A. No. 4/2022 in O.S. No. 35/2022 Outcome: Petition DISMISSED with no costs. K. Nandagopal sought to be impleaded as the 4th defendant in Santhanakumar's suit for permanent injunction over suit property (S.No.31). Nandagopal claimed he owns adjacent lands and uses the disputed property as a common access way to reach his own fields. The court found Nandagopal would only be incidentally affected by the judgment and lacks necessary party status under Order I Rule 10 CPC, as the core dispute regarding Santhanakumar's possession and alleged interference by revenue officials can be decided without him. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: I.A. No. 4/2022 in O.S. No. 35/2022 Outcome: Petition DISMISSED with no costs. K. Nandagopal sought to be impleaded as the 4th defendant in Santhanakumar's suit for permanent injunction over suit property (S.No.31). Nandagopal claimed he owns adjacent lands and uses the disputed property as a common access way to reach his own fields. The court found Nandagopal would only be incidentally affected by the judgment and lacks necessary party status under Order I Rule 10 CPC, as the core dispute regarding Santhanakumar's possession and alleged interference by revenue officials can be decided without him. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts