P.Manimurugan vs Dr.S.R.Sreenivasa Kannan Advocate - G.Sivakumar — 4486/2025

Case under Limitation Act Section 5. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 13th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNKK010064642025

Filing Number

5368/2025

Filing Date

25-Nov-2025

Registration No

4486/2025

Registration Date

25-Nov-2025

Court

Principal District Court, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari

Judge

1-Principal District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

13-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed

Last updated 19-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Limitation Act Section 5

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.P.Manimurugan

    Adv. Linus Raj Panneer Selvam

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Dr.S.R.Sreenivasa Kannan Advocate - G.Sivakumar

  2. 2.Ramani Kannan

    Adv. G.Sivakumar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary The Principal Sessions Judge allowed a petition to condone a 140-day delay in filing a criminal appeal against an acquittal judgment. The court accepted the petitioner's explanation that he initially believed the case was filed under private complaint procedure and mistakenly approached the High Court's Law Officer before being directed to file the appeal before the Sessions Court, finding the delay neither willful nor wanton and uncontested by the respondents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  4. 12-Mar-2026

    Orders

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  5. 11-Mar-2026

    Orders

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  6. 17-Feb-2026

    Service Pending-Notice

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  7. 06-Jan-2026

    Service Pending-Notice

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  8. 25-Nov-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 25-Nov-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 4486/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Principal Sessions Judge allowed a petition to condone a 140-day delay in filing a criminal appeal against an acquittal judgment. The court accepted the petitioner's explanation that he initially believed the case was filed under private complaint procedure and mistakenly approached the High Court's Law Officer before being directed to file the appeal before the Sessions Court, finding the delay neither willful nor wanton and uncontested by the respondents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case