K.Ramasamy vs R.Senthilkumar — 139/2018

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 7. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 05th June 2026.

Evidence Next hearing 05-Jun-2026 this date has passed

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNDG010025682018

Filing Number

8000035/2018

Filing Date

11-Aug-2018

Registration No

139/2018

Registration Date

11-Aug-2018

Court

Principal District Court, Dindugul

Judge

1-Principal District Judge

Last updated 23-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 7

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.K.Ramasamy

    Adv. R.Marappan

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.R.Senthilkumar

Case History

  1. 05-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 27-Apr-2026

    DepositionView PDF

    Summary: In O.S. No. 139/2018 dated 27.04.2026, the Principal District Judge, Dindigul recorded witness examination and cross-examination in a civil suit. The court found discrepancies in the defendant's signatures on a document (promissory note) dated 15.08.2015 compared with signatures given on 07.10.2023, and determined the defendant's handwriting on the document did not match his current handwriting. The case proceeded with examination of evidence regarding a monetary transaction of Rs. 18 lakhs allegedly lent to the plaintiff. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 27-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  4. 22-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  5. 15-Apr-2026

    DepositionView PDF

  6. 15-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  7. 07-Apr-2026

    DepositionView PDF

  8. 07-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  9. 02-Apr-2026

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    Principal District Judge

  10. 18-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  11. 12-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  12. 27-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  13. 20-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  14. 17-Feb-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

  15. 17-Feb-2026

    Additional Issues

    Principal District Judge

  16. 16-Feb-2026

    Counter

    Principal District Judge

  17. 06-Feb-2026

    Counter

    Principal District Judge

  18. 03-Jan-2026

    Counter

    Principal District Judge

  19. 19-Dec-2025

    Counter

    Principal District Judge

  20. 11-Dec-2025

    Counter

    Principal District Judge

  21. 04-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  22. 20-Nov-2025

    DepositionView PDF

  23. 20-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  24. 17-Nov-2025

    DepositionView PDF

  25. 17-Nov-2025

    Trial

    Principal District Judge

  26. 07-Nov-2025

    Trial

    Principal District Judge

  27. 31-Oct-2025

    Trial

    Principal District Judge

  28. 30-Oct-2025

    Issues

    Principal District Judge

  29. 30-Oct-2025

    Restored

    Principal District Judge

  30. 30-Oct-2025

    Issues

    Principal District Judge

  31. 06-Dec-2024

    DepositionView PDF

  32. 22-Feb-2019

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

  33. 22-Feb-2019

    Copy of DecreeView PDF

  34. 22-Feb-2019

    Copy of DecreeView PDF

  35. 22-Feb-2019

    Disposed

    Principal District Judge

  36. 02-Feb-2019

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  37. 17-Jan-2019

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  38. 05-Dec-2018

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  39. 31-Oct-2018

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge

  40. 06-Oct-2018

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge

  41. 03-Sep-2018

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  42. 11-Aug-2018

    Case filed

    Registration No. 139/2018

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: In O.S. No. 139/2018 dated 27.04.2026, the Principal District Judge, Dindigul recorded witness examination and cross-examination in a civil suit. The court found discrepancies in the defendant's signatures on a document (promissory note) dated 15.08.2015 compared with signatures given on 07.10.2023, and determined the defendant's handwriting on the document did not match his current handwriting. The case proceeded with examination of evidence regarding a monetary transaction of Rs. 18 lakhs allegedly lent to the plaintiff. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case