C.Muralithara vs P.Ghouse Basha Advocate - GOPALAKANNAN.K.B, BASKAR.K — 170/2022

Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section O7,R1to6. Status: IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending. Next hearing: 12th June 2026.

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNKI010011412022

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

Next Hearing

12th June 2026

Filing Number

292/2022

Filing Date

06-04-2022

Registration No

170/2022

Registration Date

11-04-2022

Court

Principal District Court, Krishnagiri

Judge

2-Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri

Acts & Sections

CodeofCivilProcedure Section O7,R1to6

Petitioner(s)

C.Muralithara

Adv. RAVISANKAR.R.K

Respondent(s)

P.Ghouse Basha Advocate - GOPALAKANNAN.K.B, BASKAR.K

N. Ramachandran

N. Sridharan

V. Madhesan

R. Sekar

N. Saminathan

S. Suber

K.R. Vinod Kumar

A.H. Manzoor Basha

R. Chandiran

K. Narayana Kumar

F. Mohammed Abrar

G. Sameena

G. Salman

Ameen Sheik

The Sub Registrar

Hearing History

Judge: 2-Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri

22-04-2026

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

08-04-2026

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

01-04-2026

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

25-03-2026

Evidence

18-03-2026

Evidence

Interim Orders

12-03-2026
Copy of Judgment/Order

Case Summary: OS No. 170/2022 Outcome: The petition was allowed. The court permitted the defendants/petitioners to file three additional documents: (1) an original receipt dated 24.12.2020, (2) a certified copy of plaint from OS No. 450/2023, and (3) a xerox copy of a receipt from OS No. 450/2023. The court ruled that document admissibility and authenticity should be determined at trial, not at the pleading stage, and that excluding documents would prejudice the defendants' ability to present their case effectively. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: OS No. 170/2022 Outcome: The petition was allowed. The court permitted the defendants/petitioners to file three additional documents: (1) an original receipt dated 24.12.2020, (2) a certified copy of plaint from OS No. 450/2023, and (3) a xerox copy of a receipt from OS No. 450/2023. The court ruled that document admissibility and authenticity should be determined at trial, not at the pleading stage, and that excluding documents would prejudice the defendants' ability to present their case effectively. 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

Principal District Court, Krishnagiri All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case