R.MUTHUVEERAN AND ANOTHER vs THE SECRETARY, KULITHALAI CO.OPERATIVE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD, KULITHALAI AND 2 OTHERS Advocate - V.R.BALASUBRAMANIAN — 136/2020
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section OR7R1. Status: Amendment. Next hearing: 20th April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNKR090002342020
Next Hearing
20th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
343/2020
Filing Date
15-10-2020
Registration No
136/2020
Registration Date
16-10-2020
Court
District Munsif Court, Kulithalai
Judge
16-Additional District Munsif, Kulithalai
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
R.MUTHUVEERAN AND ANOTHER
Adv. R.M.SENTHIL
RAVICHANDRAN
Adv. R.M.SENTHIL
Respondent(s)
THE SECRETARY, KULITHALAI CO.OPERATIVE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD, KULITHALAI AND 2 OTHERS Advocate - V.R.BALASUBRAMANIAN
THE PRESIDENT, KULITHALAI CO.OPERATIVE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD, KULITHALAI
Adv. V.R.BALASUBRAMANIAN
THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR,
Adv. V.R.BALASUBRAMANIAN
Hearing History
Judge: 16-Additional District Munsif, Kulithalai
Amendment
Amendment
Amendment
Amendment
Amendment
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 15-04-2026 | Amendment | |
| 09-04-2026 | Amendment | |
| 01-04-2026 | Amendment | |
| 30-03-2026 | Amendment | |
| 24-03-2026 | Amendment |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court allowed the defendants' petition to recall their witness (DW1) to mark additional documents (payment records from 2013 showing a Rs. 70,000 refund to the plaintiff). The court held that both parties must be given full opportunity to prove their cases in the interest of complete justice, and declined to pre-judge the admissibility of xerox copies, leaving that determination for trial. The suit concerns alleged property encroachment by the plaintiffs beyond their purchased extent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court allowed the defendants' petition to recall their witness (DW1) to mark additional documents (payment records from 2013 showing a Rs. 70,000 refund to the plaintiff). The court held that both parties must be given full opportunity to prove their cases in the interest of complete justice, and declined to pre-judge the admissibility of xerox copies, leaving that determination for trial. The suit concerns alleged property encroachment by the plaintiffs beyond their purchased extent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts