Eshwari vs Ponnathal — 80/2022

Case under Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 37(1), 25(d), 27(c). Status: IA Pending. Next hearing: 04th June 2026.

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNDG070001052022

IA Pending

Next Hearing

04th June 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

104/2022

Filing Date

08-02-2022

Registration No

80/2022

Registration Date

23-03-2022

Court

Sub Court, Palani

Judge

2-Additional Sub Judge

Acts & Sections

COURT FEES ACT, 1870 Section 37(1), 25(d), 27(c)
IA/1/2022 Classification : OS Section EshwariRajendran
IA/2/2023 Classification : OS Section EshwariPavunathal
IA/3/2024 Classification : OS Section Eshwari

Petitioner(s)

Eshwari

Adv. S.Anvardeen

Respondent(s)

Ponnathal

Pavunathal

Adv. Thiru. V. Rajamanikam

Karuppuchamy

Vigneshkumar

Sarkunam

Prema

Kumarasamy

Rajendran

Adv. P.Chandrasekaran

Sivakumar

Adv. P.Chandrasekaran

Perumalsamy

Sivaraj

Thangavel

Hemalatha

Mahudeeswaran

Hearing History

Judge: 2-Additional Sub Judge

22-04-2026

IA Pending

10-04-2026

IA Pending

12-03-2026

Part Heard

04-03-2026

Part Heard

18-02-2026

Part Heard

Interim Orders

09-03-2023
Bail
18-04-2023
Bail
11-12-2023
Bail
11-12-2023
Bail
07-12-2023
Bail
09-02-2024
Bail
22-03-2024
Bail
26-03-2025
Copy of Order

SUMMARY The petition filed by the plaintiff (Iswari) under CPC Order 6 Rule 17 and Section 151 seeking to amend the original suit by including two additional properties allegedly purchased from ancestral income has been dismissed. The court found that the amendment petition was filed with the intent to alter the fundamental basis of the case after both parties' evidence had concluded, and cited the Supreme Court precedent in *Basavaraj v. Indira* to hold that amendments changing the case's foundation post-evidence are not permissible. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

SUMMARY The petition filed by the plaintiff (Iswari) under CPC Order 6 Rule 17 and Section 151 seeking to amend the original suit by including two additional properties allegedly purchased from ancestral income has been dismissed. The court found that the amendment petition was filed with the intent to alter the fundamental basis of the case after both parties' evidence had concluded, and cited the Supreme Court precedent in *Basavaraj v. Indira* to hold that amendments changing the case's foundation post-evidence are not permissible. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Sub Court, Palani All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case