SRI NARAYANDAS, GOVINDADAS PRIVATE FAMILY TRUST REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE D.NARAYANBDAS vs MATHIYALAGAN Advocate - S.RAMKUMAR — 14/2022

Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section OR7R1. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 30th April 2026.

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNKR090000062022

Evidence

Next Hearing

30th April 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

11/2022

Filing Date

03-01-2022

Registration No

14/2022

Registration Date

24-01-2022

Court

District Munsif Court, Kulithalai

Judge

16-Additional District Munsif, Kulithalai

Acts & Sections

CodeofCivilProcedure Section OR7R1

Petitioner(s)

SRI NARAYANDAS, GOVINDADAS PRIVATE FAMILY TRUST REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE D.NARAYANBDAS

Adv. M.KHAJA MOHIDEEN, M.KAJAMOHIDEEN

Respondent(s)

MATHIYALAGAN Advocate - S.RAMKUMAR

Hearing History

Judge: 16-Additional District Munsif, Kulithalai

16-04-2026

Evidence

07-04-2026

Evidence

30-03-2026

Evidence

23-03-2026

Evidence

16-03-2026

Evidence

Interim Orders

28-01-2026
Copy of Judgment

The petition filed by the Defendant under Section 151 of CPC seeking permission to reopen the chief examination of witness DW3 for marking documents (rental receipts) omitted during the initial examination was allowed by the court. The court found that to render complete and fair justice, both parties must be given opportunities to prove their cases through documentary evidence, and the admissibility of documents should be decided at trial, not in an interim application. The Respondent (Plaintiff) retains full rights to cross-examine the witness and object to the documents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The petition filed by the Defendant under Section 151 of CPC seeking permission to reopen the chief examination of witness DW3 for marking documents (rental receipts) omitted during the initial examination was allowed by the court. The court found that to render complete and fair justice, both parties must be given opportunities to prove their cases through documentary evidence, and the admissibility of documents should be decided at trial, not in an interim application. The Respondent (Plaintiff) retains full rights to cross-examine the witness and object to the documents. 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

District Munsif Court, Kulithalai All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case