Minor.Abinesh (M.Chithra) vs Madhesan.V Advocate - PARTHIBARASAN.K — 13/2021
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section O33,R1. Status: Steps. Next hearing: 11th June 2026.
OP - Original Petition
CNR: TNKI010000922021
Next Hearing
11th June 2026
Filing Number
25/2021
Filing Date
11-01-2021
Registration No
13/2021
Registration Date
16-02-2021
Court
Principal District Court, Krishnagiri
Judge
1-Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Minor.Abinesh (M.Chithra)
Adv. VENKATASAMY.R
Minor. M.Kanmani
Respondent(s)
Madhesan.V Advocate - PARTHIBARASAN.K
Deivanai
Adv. PARTHIBARASAN.K
Jothi
Adv. PARTHIBARASAN.K
Sathiyam
Adv. GOVINDAN.G
B.V.Mani
Adv. GOVINDAN.G
Krishnamoorthy
Adv. GOVINDAN.G
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri
Steps
Steps
Steps
Steps
Steps
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-04-2026 | Steps |
| 16-04-2026 | Steps |
| 25-03-2026 | Steps |
| 17-03-2026 | Steps |
| 12-03-2026 | Steps |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: I.A.No.04/2025 in POP.No.13/2021 Outcome: Petition Dismissed The Principal District Judge dismissed the interlocutory application filed by minor M.Abinesh (through his mother M.Chithra) seeking to amend the plaint to reflect his attainment of majority and removal as next friend. Although the court acknowledged that the first petitioner was declared major in March 2023, it found the petition improperly presented due to inconsistencies: the second petitioner remained described as minor without proper majority declaration, the petition contained contradictory descriptions of the proceedings, and the status of the second petitioner was not clarified. The court permitted the petitioners to file a fresh petition in proper form. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: I.A.No.04/2025 in POP.No.13/2021 Outcome: Petition Dismissed The Principal District Judge dismissed the interlocutory application filed by minor M.Abinesh (through his mother M.Chithra) seeking to amend the plaint to reflect his attainment of majority and removal as next friend. Although the court acknowledged that the first petitioner was declared major in March 2023, it found the petition improperly presented due to inconsistencies: the second petitioner remained described as minor without proper majority declaration, the petition contained contradictory descriptions of the proceedings, and the status of the second petitioner was not clarified. The court permitted the petitioners to file a fresh petition in proper form. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts