K.Chidambaram vs Porselvi Advocate - PUGALENDHI.D — 100038/2017
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section Or7Rule1to6. Status: IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending. Next hearing: 18th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit (Title)
CNR: TNKI070008292017
Next Hearing
18th June 2026
Filing Number
100044/2017
Filing Date
07-06-2017
Registration No
100038/2017
Registration Date
07-06-2017
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Pochampalli
Judge
1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pochampalli
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
K.Chidambaram
Adv. JAYABALAN.M
Respondent(s)
Porselvi Advocate - PUGALENDHI.D
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pochampalli
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 29-04-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 09-04-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 24-03-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 12-03-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 17-02-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: OS No. 38/2017 Outcome: The petition was dismissed. The court found that the petitioner K. Chidambaram failed to substantiate his claims with credible evidence. The petitioner's testimony regarding alleged property disputes, signature forgeries, and land transactions lacked specific details, documentary proof, and corroboration. The court noted inconsistencies in his account and insufficient grounds to proceed against the respondent Porselvi Advocate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: OS No. 38/2017 Outcome: The petition was dismissed. The court found that the petitioner K. Chidambaram failed to substantiate his claims with credible evidence. The petitioner's testimony regarding alleged property disputes, signature forgeries, and land transactions lacked specific details, documentary proof, and corroboration. The court noted inconsistencies in his account and insufficient grounds to proceed against the respondent Porselvi Advocate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts