A.Maamoondi vs T.Murugan Advocate - P.Mathiyalagan — 85/2023

Case under Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 25(b). Status: IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending. Next hearing: 08th June 2026.

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNDG080001202023

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

Next Hearing

08th June 2026

Filing Number

120/2023

Filing Date

03-10-2023

Registration No

85/2023

Registration Date

03-10-2023

Court

District Munsif Court, Palani

Judge

2-District Munsif

Acts & Sections

COURT FEES ACT, 1870 Section 25(b)

Petitioner(s)

A.Maamoondi

Adv. M.Manikannan

Respondent(s)

T.Murugan Advocate - P.Mathiyalagan

M.Pandiyan

Adv. P.Mathiyalagan

M.Subramani

Adv. P.Mathiyalagan

M.Periyasamy

Adv. P.Mathiyalagan

P.Guru

Adv. P.Mathiyalagan

Hearing History

Judge: 2-District Munsif

23-04-2026

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

23-03-2026

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

18-03-2026

Orders

12-03-2026

Orders

20-02-2026

Orders

Interim Orders

30-06-2025
Copy of Order
30-06-2025
Copy of Order
30-06-2025
Copy of Order
30-06-2025
Copy of Order
08-09-2025
Copy of Order
08-09-2025
Copy of Order

Summary The court dismissed the petition (I.A. No. 3-2023) filed by the plaintiff seeking to add three women (proposed defendants 6, 7, 8) as necessary parties to the original suit (O.S. No. 85-2023) regarding Mamundi temple management. The District Court found insufficient evidence that these individuals were essential parties and held that the case could proceed to a final decision without them, making their inclusion unnecessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court dismissed the petition (I.A. No. 3-2023) filed by the plaintiff seeking to add three women (proposed defendants 6, 7, 8) as necessary parties to the original suit (O.S. No. 85-2023) regarding Mamundi temple management. The District Court found insufficient evidence that these individuals were essential parties and held that the case could proceed to a final decision without them, making their inclusion unnecessary. 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

District Munsif Court, Palani All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case