Kalyanaraman vs Raja — 139/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 22. Disposed: Uncontested--Settled through Lok Adalat on 06th June 2026.

Case disposed

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNKA010023812025

Filing Number

621/2025

Filing Date

24-Jun-2025

Registration No

139/2025

Registration Date

25-Jun-2025

Court

Principal District Court, Kallakurichi

Judge

1-Principal District Judge

Decision Date

06-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--Settled through Lok Adalat

Last updated 08-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 22

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Kalyanaraman

    Adv. Radhakrishnan R

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Raja

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-Jun-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District Judge

  3. 05-Jun-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  4. 05-Jun-2026

    Restored

    Principal District Judge

  5. 05-Jun-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  6. 15-Apr-2026

    JudgmentView PDF

    Summary of Case 139/2025 - Kalyanaraman v. Raja Court Decision: The Principal District Judge of Kallakurichi decreed the suit in favor of plaintiff Kalyanaraman on 15 April 2026. The defendant Raja was ordered to pay Rs. 33,94,500/- comprising the principal loan amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- plus interest at 9% per annum from the plaint date until judgment and 6% thereafter, plus suit costs of Rs. 1,12,349.50. Key Reasoning: The plaintiff proved through oral testimony and documentary evidence (a valid promissory note dated 7 January 2024) that the defendant borrowed Rs. 30,00,000/- for family needs and failed to repay despite demands and a legal notice. The court invoked Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which presumed the note's genuineness. Since the defendant remained exparte (failed to contest), he could not rebut the presumption, securing judgment for the plaintiff. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  7. 15-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District Judge

  8. 07-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Principal District Judge

  9. 01-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  10. 24-Mar-2026

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  11. 17-Mar-2026

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  12. 14-Mar-2026

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  13. 13-Mar-2026

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  14. 06-Mar-2026

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  15. 23-Feb-2026

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  16. 06-Feb-2026

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  17. 28-Jan-2026

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  18. 19-Jan-2026

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  19. 05-Jan-2026

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  20. 07-Nov-2025

    IA Pending

    Principal District Judge

  21. 06-Oct-2025

    IA Pending

    Principal District Judge

  22. 22-Aug-2025

    IA Pending

    Principal District Judge

  23. 29-Jul-2025

    IA Pending

    Principal District Judge

  24. 28-Jul-2025

    Issue of Service

    Principal District Judge

  25. 25-Jun-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  26. 24-Jun-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 139/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case 139/2025 - Kalyanaraman v. Raja Court Decision: The Principal District Judge of Kallakurichi decreed the suit in favor of plaintiff Kalyanaraman on 15 April 2026. The defendant Raja was ordered to pay Rs. 33,94,500/- comprising the principal loan amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- plus interest at 9% per annum from the plaint date until judgment and 6% thereafter, plus suit costs of Rs. 1,12,349.50. Key Reasoning: The plaintiff proved through oral testimony and documentary evidence (a valid promissory note dated 7 January 2024) that the defendant borrowed Rs. 30,00,000/- for family needs and failed to repay despite demands and a legal notice. The court invoked Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which presumed the note's genuineness. Since the defendant remained exparte (failed to contest), he could not rebut the presumption, securing judgment for the plaintiff. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case