Veeranathan vs M.Gopalakrishnan Advocate - N.Retnasamy — 600067/2017
Case under --- Section 25(d). Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 02nd June 2026.
OS - Original Suit (Title)
CNR: TNKK040001032017
Next Hearing
02nd June 2026
Filing Number
133/2017
Filing Date
15-03-2017
Registration No
600067/2017
Registration Date
28-03-2017
Court
Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari
Judge
8-II Additional District Munsif
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Veeranathan
Adv. Adv V.Kumaran Nair
Kadamban
G. Karuppasamy
Respondent(s)
M.Gopalakrishnan Advocate - N.Retnasamy
M. Krishnabalan
L. Kumar,
Wilson Selvaraj
The Commissioner
Hearing History
Judge: 8-II Additional District Munsif
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
IA Pending
IA Pending
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 25-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 21-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 18-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 17-04-2026 | IA Pending |
| 07-04-2026 | IA Pending |
Interim Orders
Case Summary The petition filed by Veerananthan (on behalf of plot owners) seeking to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit was dismissed. The court found that the omission to include a common access lane in the suit's schedule property did not constitute a formal defect under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC, as the property was substantially identifiable from available evidence and an advocate commissioner's report. Since the suit had already reached the arguments stage after a full trial (filed in 2017), allowing withdrawal would cause unnecessary prejudice and multiplicity of proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The petition filed by Veerananthan (on behalf of plot owners) seeking to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit was dismissed. The court found that the omission to include a common access lane in the suit's schedule property did not constitute a formal defect under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC, as the property was substantially identifiable from available evidence and an advocate commissioner's report. Since the suit had already reached the arguments stage after a full trial (filed in 2017), allowing withdrawal would cause unnecessary prejudice and multiplicity of proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts