Chinnadurai vs Natarajan — 425/2023
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section O7,R1. Status: Amendment. Next hearing: 02nd June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNDG010068852023
Next Hearing
02nd June 2026
Filing Number
12293/2023
Filing Date
02-12-2023
Registration No
425/2023
Registration Date
11-12-2023
Court
Principal District Court, Dindugul
Judge
2-Addl. District and Sessions Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Chinnadurai
Adv. V. Maria Selvaraj
Respondent(s)
Natarajan
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Addl. District and Sessions Judge
Amendment
Amendment
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 21-04-2026 | Amendment |
| 09-04-2026 | Amendment |
| 08-04-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 02-04-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 12-03-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
Interim Orders
Summary: The Additional District Judge, Dindigul, allowed the petition to implead two proposed defendants (Papathi and the Sub-Registrar, Sannarpatti) in the partition suit O.S. No. 425/2023. The court found that Papathi, who purchased suit property from the 3rd defendant during litigation, is a necessary party to ensure effective adjudication and avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The Sub-Registrar was also impleaded in the limited context of facilitating enforcement of court orders and preventing frustration of proceedings through subsequent property transactions. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Additional District Judge, Dindigul, allowed the petition to implead two proposed defendants (Papathi and the Sub-Registrar, Sannarpatti) in the partition suit O.S. No. 425/2023. The court found that Papathi, who purchased suit property from the 3rd defendant during litigation, is a necessary party to ensure effective adjudication and avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The Sub-Registrar was also impleaded in the limited context of facilitating enforcement of court orders and preventing frustration of proceedings through subsequent property transactions. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts