R.KAMATCHI PERIYASAMY@GOKUL vs NATARAJAN Advocate - K.VELUSAMY — 100033/2014
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section U/RORDER7RULE1ANDSECTION151. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 20th April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNKR010003022014
Next Hearing
20th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
657/2014
Filing Date
30-06-2014
Registration No
100033/2014
Registration Date
30-06-2014
Court
Principal District Court, Karur
Judge
1-District Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
R.KAMATCHI PERIYASAMY@GOKUL
Adv. S.CHANDRASEKAR
Respondent(s)
NATARAJAN Advocate - K.VELUSAMY
DEIVANAI R
Adv. M.V.PONKUMAR
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Judge
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 16-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 15-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 10-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 08-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 06-04-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Court Order Summary Case No.: A.V.No. 33/2014 | Court: District Court, Karur | Date: 06.04.2026 The court completed the cross-examination of the first defendant (Natrajan) in this civil property dispute case involving alleged fraudulent land transactions. The judge thoroughly scrutinized the plaintiff's witness testimony regarding claims of forged documents, unauthorized property sales, and alleged criminal conduct, finding multiple inconsistencies and rejecting the plaintiff's allegations as unsubstantiated. The court concluded that the plaintiff and co-witnesses appear to have conspired to present false testimony to defraud the first defendant, and accordingly rejected the plaintiff's claims while finding the defendant's version credible. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Order Summary Case No.: A.V.No. 33/2014 | Court: District Court, Karur | Date: 06.04.2026 The court completed the cross-examination of the first defendant (Natrajan) in this civil property dispute case involving alleged fraudulent land transactions. The judge thoroughly scrutinized the plaintiff's witness testimony regarding claims of forged documents, unauthorized property sales, and alleged criminal conduct, finding multiple inconsistencies and rejecting the plaintiff's allegations as unsubstantiated. The court concluded that the plaintiff and co-witnesses appear to have conspired to present false testimony to defraud the first defendant, and accordingly rejected the plaintiff's claims while finding the defendant's version credible. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts