VELLAIYAN vs BACKIYAM AND 01 ANOTHER Advocate - P.SARAVANAN — 18/2024

Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section OR7,R1. Status: IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending. Next hearing: 08th June 2026.

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNKR090000242024

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

Next Hearing

08th June 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

37/2024

Filing Date

20-02-2024

Registration No

18/2024

Registration Date

22-02-2024

Court

District Munsif Court, Kulithalai

Judge

16-Additional District Munsif, Kulithalai

Acts & Sections

CodeofCivilProcedure Section OR7,R1

Petitioner(s)

VELLAIYAN

Adv. T.FAKKRUDEEN

Respondent(s)

BACKIYAM AND 01 ANOTHER Advocate - P.SARAVANAN

KRISHNAVENI

Adv. P.SARAVANAN

Hearing History

Judge: 16-Additional District Munsif, Kulithalai

20-04-2026

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

27-03-2026

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

16-03-2026

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

10-03-2026

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

07-03-2026

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

Interim Orders

20-04-2026
Copy of Judgment

Court Order Summary Case: O.S. No. 18/2024 | Court: Additional District Court of Negapattinam (Tamil Nadu) | Date: April 20, 2026 Outcome: The petition filed by the plaintiff seeking permission to file a supplementary reply in the original suit was dismissed. The court found that the plaintiff's reasons for delayed filing—that important documents were inadvertently lost—were not acceptable grounds, and that the plaintiff failed to establish that filing beyond the prescribed time limit was justified. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Court Order Summary Case: O.S. No. 18/2024 | Court: Additional District Court of Negapattinam (Tamil Nadu) | Date: April 20, 2026 Outcome: The petition filed by the plaintiff seeking permission to file a supplementary reply in the original suit was dismissed. The court found that the plaintiff's reasons for delayed filing—that important documents were inadvertently lost—were not acceptable grounds, and that the plaintiff failed to establish that filing beyond the prescribed time limit was justified. 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