Raveendran vs Manivasan Advocate - R. JAYAKUMAR — 121/2021

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Disposed: Uncontested--Settled through Mediation on 23rd March 2026.

Case disposed

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNKK150003102019

Filing Number

298/2019

Filing Date

14-Oct-2019

Registration No

121/2021

Registration Date

23-Dec-2021

Court

Sub Court, Eraniel

Judge

1-Sub Judge

Decision Date

23-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--Settled through Mediation

Last updated 19-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 26

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Raveendran

    Adv. M.P.Narayanan Ambadi

  2. 2.Raveendran

    Adv. M.P.Narayanan Ambadi

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Manivasan Advocate - R. JAYAKUMAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 23-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

  3. 23-Mar-2026

    Copy of DecreeView PDF

    The court settled the suit for Rs. 2,71,934/- between Ravindran (plaintiff) and Manivasan (defendant) through mediation, with the settlement agreement forming part of the decree. The plaintiff was entitled to a refund of court fees as per rules, and no costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 23-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Sub Judge

  5. 11-Mar-2026

    Appearance

    Sub Judge

  6. 23-Feb-2026

    Mediation

    Sub Judge

  7. 24-Jan-2026

    Admission

    Sub Judge

  8. 24-Jan-2026

    Restored

    Sub Judge

  9. 24-Jan-2026

    Mediation

    Sub Judge

  10. 06-Apr-2022

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

  11. 06-Apr-2022

    Disposed

    Sub Judge

  12. 22-Mar-2022

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Sub Judge

  13. 22-Feb-2022

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Sub Judge

  14. 24-Jan-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  15. 14-Oct-2019

    Case filed

    Registration No. 121/2021

casestatus.in Summary

The court settled the suit for Rs. 2,71,934/- between Ravindran (plaintiff) and Manivasan (defendant) through mediation, with the settlement agreement forming part of the decree. The plaintiff was entitled to a refund of court fees as per rules, and no costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case