Sumathi vs Sivakumar Advocate - RANGANATHAN.S — 200187/2014
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section 37(2),27(c). Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 17th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit (Title)
CNR: TNKI110001022014
Next Hearing
17th June 2026
Filing Number
200187/2014
Filing Date
10-02-2014
Registration No
200187/2014
Registration Date
10-02-2014
Court
Sub Court, Uthangarai
Judge
2-Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sumathi
Adv. BASKAR.K
Dhanam
Adv. BASKAR.K
Govindammal (died)
Adv. BASKAR.K
Palaniammal
Adv. BASKAR.K
Vennila
Adv. BASKAR.K
Valar
Adv. BASKAR.K
Indira
Adv. BASKAR.K
Narmadha
Adv. BASKAR.K
Santhi
Adv. BASKAR.K
Marry
Adv. BASKAR.K
Arun
Adv. BASKAR.K
Respondent(s)
Sivakumar Advocate - RANGANATHAN.S
Manimekalai
Adv. SHANMUGASUNDARAM.R
Sathya
Adv. VIJAYAN.K
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai
Evidence
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 |
|---|---|
| 30-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 24-04-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 17-04-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 06-04-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 23-03-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
Interim Orders
Case Summary - 200187/2014 Petition ALLOWED. The court permitted the petitioners (Sumathi, Dhanam, and Govindammal's estate) to recall and cross-examine the 3rd defendant/witness (Sathya) in the underlying case. The court found that allowing this opportunity would help establish the true nature of the case and serve justice, dismissing the respondent's objection that the petition lacked sufficient grounds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary - 200187/2014 Petition ALLOWED. The court permitted the petitioners (Sumathi, Dhanam, and Govindammal's estate) to recall and cross-examine the 3rd defendant/witness (Sathya) in the underlying case. The court found that allowing this opportunity would help establish the true nature of the case and serve justice, dismissing the respondent's objection that the petition lacked sufficient grounds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts