Canara Bank Kallipatti Branch vs P Manikandan — 167/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Order7 Rule 1. Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 10th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNED090003562024
e-Filing Number
06-08-2024
Filing Number
365/2024
Filing Date
12-Sep-2024
Registration No
167/2024
Registration Date
13-Sep-2024
Court
Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam
Judge
2-Subordinate Judge
Last updated 28-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Canara Bank Kallipatti Branch
Adv. Annaamalai K R
Respondent(s)
-
1.P Manikandan
Case History
-
10-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
10-Mar-2026
Arguments
Subordinate Judge
-
10-Dec-2025
Arguments
Subordinate Judge
-
26-Nov-2025
Arguments
Subordinate Judge
-
25-Oct-2025
Arguments
Subordinate Judge
-
13-Sep-2025
Arguments
Subordinate Judge
-
29-Aug-2025
Arguments
Subordinate Judge
-
23-Jul-2025
Copy of DepositionView PDF
Summary Witness Parusari Sushmitha gave her deposition on 23.07.2025 before the Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam in OS No. 167/2021, solemnly affirmed under Act X of 1873. The witness testified regarding seven documentary exhibits (petitioner's application, consent note, educational agreement, protection letter, advocate notice, account details, and second schedule) which were marked as evidence. No cross-examination was conducted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
23-Jul-2025
Arguments
Subordinate Judge
-
25-Jun-2025
Ex-Parte Evidence
Subordinate Judge
-
07-Apr-2025
Ex-Parte Evidence
Subordinate Judge
-
28-Feb-2025
Ex-Parte Evidence
Subordinate Judge
-
20-Dec-2024
Service Pending
Subordinate Judge
-
25-Oct-2024
Service Pending
Subordinate Judge
-
13-Sep-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
12-Sep-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 167/2024
Summary Witness Parusari Sushmitha gave her deposition on 23.07.2025 before the Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam in OS No. 167/2021, solemnly affirmed under Act X of 1873. The witness testified regarding seven documentary exhibits (petitioner's application, consent note, educational agreement, protection letter, advocate notice, account details, and second schedule) which were marked as evidence. No cross-examination was conducted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts