R.SUSILA AND 2 OTHERS vs P.SUBRAMANIAN AND 7 OTHERS — 313/2023

Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section OR7R1. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 02nd June 2026.

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNKR010038532023

Evidence

Next Hearing

02nd June 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

1249/2023

Filing Date

05-12-2023

Registration No

313/2023

Registration Date

05-12-2023

Court

Principal District Court, Karur

Judge

1-District Judge

Acts & Sections

CodeofCivilProcedure Section OR7R1
IA/8/2025 Classification : Petition to Set-aside Exparte Order or Decree Section P.SUBRAMANIAN AND 7 OTHERSR.SUSILA AND 2 OTHERS
IA/9/2026 Classification : Recall Petition Section P.SUBRAMANIAN AND 7 OTHERSR.SUSILA AND 2 OTHERS

Petitioner(s)

R.SUSILA AND 2 OTHERS

Adv. M.SELVAKUMAR

N.DHANALAKSHMI

R.ELANJIYAM

Respondent(s)

P.SUBRAMANIAN AND 7 OTHERS

V.AKILAMBAL

B.ANNAPOORANI

B.DHAMAYANTHI

S.INDIRAGANDHI

N.KRISHNAKUMAR

SENTHIL KUMAR TEXTILE MILLS PRIVATE LTD R.SENTHILKUMAR

AIKI ECO POWER LLP PARTNER P.NAMASIVAYAM

Hearing History

Judge: 1-District Judge

08-04-2026

Evidence

24-03-2026

Evidence

09-03-2026

Evidence

25-02-2026

Evidence

18-02-2026

Evidence

Interim Orders

08-04-2026
Copy of Oral Evidence / Deposition

Summary: In Civil Case No. 313/2023 dated 08.04.2026 from Karur District Court, the court recorded cross-examination of the first defendant (Susheela). The court found that on 23.08.2010, a property measuring 1 acre 88 cents was sold to the sixth defendant N. Krishnakumar, and that the sixth defendant has been operating a company on the property since 2010. The court rejected the plaintiff's claim that she would not receive compensation for the property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: In Civil Case No. 313/2023 dated 08.04.2026 from Karur District Court, the court recorded cross-examination of the first defendant (Susheela). The court found that on 23.08.2010, a property measuring 1 acre 88 cents was sold to the sixth defendant N. Krishnakumar, and that the sixth defendant has been operating a company on the property since 2010. The court rejected the plaintiff's claim that she would not receive compensation for the property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Principal District Court, Karur All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case