G. Manjula vs S.M. Ananthakrishan — 247/2022

Case under Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 22. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 03rd June 2026.

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNDG070005602022

Evidence

Next Hearing

03rd June 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

548/2022

Filing Date

07-07-2022

Registration No

247/2022

Registration Date

14-07-2022

Court

Sub Court, Palani

Judge

1-Principal Sub Judge

Acts & Sections

COURT FEES ACT, 1870 Section 22
IA/1/2024 Classification : 151 Petition Section S.M. AnanthakrishanG. Manjula
IA/2/2024 Classification : OS Section S.M. AnanthakrishanG. Manjula

Petitioner(s)

G. Manjula

Adv. G. Sabitha

Respondent(s)

S.M. Ananthakrishan

Jeyanthi

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Principal Sub Judge

16-04-2026

Evidence

30-03-2026

Evidence

12-03-2026

Evidence

05-02-2026

Evidence

07-01-2026

Evidence

Interim Orders

15-10-2022
Bail
01-11-2022
Bail
12-03-2026
Copy of Deposition

Summary: In this civil suit (O.S. No. 247/2022) from the Principal District Court, Palani, dated 12-03-2026, the court recorded cross-examination of the first defendant. The defendant testified regarding her educational qualification (B.A.), family assets including property in Dindigul and bank accounts, denial of receiving money from the plaintiff in January 2022 (citing COVID-19 hardships), and clarification that she did not provide any promissory note. The court examined her credibility regarding claims made in an IP (Intellectual Property/Initial Petition) filing and property transfers to the second defendant's name. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: In this civil suit (O.S. No. 247/2022) from the Principal District Court, Palani, dated 12-03-2026, the court recorded cross-examination of the first defendant. The defendant testified regarding her educational qualification (B.A.), family assets including property in Dindigul and bank accounts, denial of receiving money from the plaintiff in January 2022 (citing COVID-19 hardships), and clarification that she did not provide any promissory note. The court examined her credibility regarding claims made in an IP (Intellectual Property/Initial Petition) filing and property transfers to the second defendant's name. 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