Dr.R.Girija vs Parvathi Rajasekar Advocate - LIYAKATHALIKAN.S — 100018/2012
Case under Cottoncopraandvegetableoilscess(abolition)act Section O21. Status: IA Pending. Next hearing: 10th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit (Title)
CNR: TNKI010000252012
Next Hearing
10th June 2026
Filing Number
100018/2012
Filing Date
08-03-2012
Registration No
100018/2012
Registration Date
08-03-2012
Court
Principal District Court, Krishnagiri
Judge
1-Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Dr.R.Girija
Adv. BASKARAN.N
Respondent(s)
Parvathi Rajasekar Advocate - LIYAKATHALIKAN.S
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri
IA Pending
IA Pending
Steps
Steps
Steps
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 29-04-2026 | IA Pending |
| 15-04-2026 | IA Pending |
| 30-03-2026 | Steps |
| 26-03-2026 | Steps |
| 16-03-2026 | Steps |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 100018/2012 The petition filed by R.C. Shekar (4th defendant) to be transposed as plaintiff in a partition suit was ALLOWED. The original plaintiff Dr. R. Girija died in March 2018 while the suit was pending, and her legal heirs (husband and son in UK) did not come on record. The court held that in partition suits, parties are interchangeable and the suit does not automatically abate upon a plaintiff's death. Since Shekar claimed the same 1/7th share as the original plaintiff and had filed a written statement, he was transposed as 2nd plaintiff to continue the proceedings. The legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff must be subsequently added as defendants. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 100018/2012 The petition filed by R.C. Shekar (4th defendant) to be transposed as plaintiff in a partition suit was ALLOWED. The original plaintiff Dr. R. Girija died in March 2018 while the suit was pending, and her legal heirs (husband and son in UK) did not come on record. The court held that in partition suits, parties are interchangeable and the suit does not automatically abate upon a plaintiff's death. Since Shekar claimed the same 1/7th share as the original plaintiff and had filed a written statement, he was transposed as 2nd plaintiff to continue the proceedings. The legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff must be subsequently added as defendants. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts