R.Bose vs Singaraj Advocate - SHANKAR GANESH G — 100243/2008
Case under Coalbearingareas(acquisitionanddevelopment)amendmentandvalidationact Section Order7,Rule1. Status: Stay. Next hearing: 19th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNMD130001422008
Next Hearing
19th June 2026
Filing Date
29-04-2008
Registration No
100243/2008
Registration Date
29-04-2008
Court
District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam
Judge
1-Principal District Munsif,Thirumangalam
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
R.Bose
Adv. SRINIVASAN K
Respondent(s)
Singaraj Advocate - SHANKAR GANESH G
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District Munsif,Thirumangalam
Stay
Stay
Stay
Stay
Stay
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-06-2026 | Stay |
| 02-06-2026 | Stay |
| 17-04-2026 | Stay |
| 15-04-2026 | Stay |
| 10-04-2026 | Stay |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 100243/2008 (R. Bose v. Singaraj Advocate & Others) Outcome: The court rejected/dismissed an interim application (IA 8/2026) filed by defendants 1 and 12 seeking to admit a computer copy of a property deed (patta) as evidence. Key Points: The court found that the document was dated 2021—after the original suit was filed in 2008—and was not mentioned in the defendants' written statements. Applying established legal procedure, the court ruled that matters not pleaded in case statements cannot be admitted as evidence at trial. The court also noted the defendants were using successive interim applications to delay the proceedings. No costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 100243/2008 (R. Bose v. Singaraj Advocate & Others) Outcome: The court rejected/dismissed an interim application (IA 8/2026) filed by defendants 1 and 12 seeking to admit a computer copy of a property deed (patta) as evidence. Key Points: The court found that the document was dated 2021—after the original suit was filed in 2008—and was not mentioned in the defendants' written statements. Applying established legal procedure, the court ruled that matters not pleaded in case statements cannot be admitted as evidence at trial. The court also noted the defendants were using successive interim applications to delay the proceedings. No costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts