D. Jeevanantham vs District Collector, Dindigul — 24/2023
Case under Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 27(c). Status: Amendment. Next hearing: 06th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNDG070000792023
Next Hearing
06th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
78/2023
Filing Date
25-01-2023
Registration No
24/2023
Registration Date
28-01-2023
Court
Sub Court, Palani
Judge
2-Additional Sub Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
D. Jeevanantham
Adv. P.Thirumoorthi
Respondent(s)
District Collector, Dindigul
Tahsildar, Palani
Block Development officer, Palani
President, Kanakkanpatti Panchayat
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Additional Sub Judge
Amendment
Amendment
Amendment
Amendment
Amendment
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 28-04-2026 | Amendment | |
| 17-04-2026 | Amendment | |
| 12-03-2026 | Amendment | |
| 03-03-2026 | Amendment | |
| 16-02-2026 | Amendment |
Interim Orders
Court Order Summary Petition Dismissed. The Additional Sub Judge, Palani dismissed the petitioner's application for temporary injunction restraining the Panchayath President from interfering with the petitioner's property possession. The court found the petitioner lacked a prima facie case, noting that the High Court had already taken cognizance of the underlying encroachment removal dispute in related writ petitions and directed the respondent to proceed lawfully. The court held the petitioner must approach the High Court for any grievance regarding the encroachment removal action, not pursue a separate suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Order Summary Petition Dismissed. The Additional Sub Judge, Palani dismissed the petitioner's application for temporary injunction restraining the Panchayath President from interfering with the petitioner's property possession. The court found the petitioner lacked a prima facie case, noting that the High Court had already taken cognizance of the underlying encroachment removal dispute in related writ petitions and directed the respondent to proceed lawfully. The court held the petitioner must approach the High Court for any grievance regarding the encroachment removal action, not pursue a separate suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts