Suseela and another vs Rajamony Advocate - Adv.C.Jeyashunmugam — 2/2020
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 151. Status: IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending. Next hearing: 05th June 2026.
EP - Execution Petition
CNR: TNKK080002222019
Next Hearing
05th June 2026
Filing Number
284/2019
Filing Date
27-09-2019
Registration No
2/2020
Registration Date
10-01-2020
Court
Principal District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram
Judge
2-Principal District Munsif
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Suseela and another
Adv. Adv.M.Thankaraj
Rakshika (Minor)
Respondent(s)
Rajamony Advocate - Adv.C.Jeyashunmugam
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Principal District Munsif
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 |
|---|---|
| 30-04-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 21-04-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 20-04-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 15-04-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 08-04-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
Interim Orders
Summary In this civil case (E.P.No.2/2020) before the Principal District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram, the court rejected the petitioner's (Susheela's) contentions regarding a mortgage deed. The court found that the third respondent (Rajamani) and petitioner's allegations of fraud and deception against Jenikumari were not substantiated, and that the mortgage document does not bind the petitioner in the manner claimed. The petition is dismissed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary In this civil case (E.P.No.2/2020) before the Principal District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram, the court rejected the petitioner's (Susheela's) contentions regarding a mortgage deed. The court found that the third respondent (Rajamani) and petitioner's allegations of fraud and deception against Jenikumari were not substantiated, and that the mortgage document does not bind the petitioner in the manner claimed. The petition is dismissed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts