Sulokshana vs Tmt. Pappa and 5 others Advocate - M.Mohamed Ajeesdheen for D1, D2 — 108/2020
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section 25(d), 27(c). Status: Amendment. Next hearing: 29th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNMD130001172020
Next Hearing
29th June 2026
Filing Number
204/2020
Filing Date
04-08-2020
Registration No
108/2020
Registration Date
04-08-2020
Court
District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam
Judge
2-Additional District Munsif, Thirumangalam
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sulokshana
Adv. S.Madhavan
Respondent(s)
Tmt. Pappa and 5 others Advocate - M.Mohamed Ajeesdheen for D1, D2
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Additional District Munsif, Thirumangalam
Amendment
Orders
IA Pending
IA Pending
IA Pending
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 29-04-2026 | Amendment |
| 18-04-2026 | Orders |
| 01-04-2026 | IA Pending |
| 16-03-2026 | IA Pending |
| 24-02-2026 | IA Pending |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Sulokshana v. Tmt. Pappa & 5 Others (I.A. No. 8/2025 in O.S. No. 108/2020) Outcome: The court allowed the petitioner's interim application seeking amendments to the original judgment dated 19.02.2020 and 06.03.2020. The court approved corrections including: invalidating a heritage certificate (No. TN 720191023994 dated 23.10.2019), and adjusting financial costs from ₹12,000 to ₹17,000 in court fees and associated judicial expenses. The court rejected the respondents' objection that the petition was time-barred, noting that limitation is a mixed question of law and fact best determined after full evidence hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Sulokshana v. Tmt. Pappa & 5 Others (I.A. No. 8/2025 in O.S. No. 108/2020) Outcome: The court allowed the petitioner's interim application seeking amendments to the original judgment dated 19.02.2020 and 06.03.2020. The court approved corrections including: invalidating a heritage certificate (No. TN 720191023994 dated 23.10.2019), and adjusting financial costs from ₹12,000 to ₹17,000 in court fees and associated judicial expenses. The court rejected the respondents' objection that the petition was time-barred, noting that limitation is a mixed question of law and fact best determined after full evidence hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts