Jeyaraman and others vs The state of Tamil Nadul, rep. its District Collector, Madurai. — 182/2023
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section 27(c). Status: Trial. Next hearing: 23rd June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNMD130001932023
Next Hearing
23rd June 2026
Filing Number
254/2023
Filing Date
18-07-2023
Registration No
182/2023
Registration Date
18-07-2023
Court
District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam
Judge
2-Additional District Munsif, Thirumangalam
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Jeyaraman and others
Adv. M.Dhanapandian
Aasha
Adv. M.Dhanapandian
Respondent(s)
The state of Tamil Nadul, rep. its District Collector, Madurai.
The Revenue Divisional Officer,
The Tahsildar,
The Revenue Inspector
The Village Administrative Officer
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Additional District Munsif, Thirumangalam
Trial
Trial
Trial
Trial
Trial
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-04-2026 | Trial |
| 16-03-2026 | Trial |
| 06-02-2026 | Trial |
| 19-11-2025 | Trial |
| 10-10-2025 | Trial |
Interim Orders
Case 182/2023 Summary Interim Application 3/2023 - DISMISSED Petitioners Jeyaraman and Aasha sought an interim injunction to restrain the respondent revenue officials from interfering with their possession of property during the pendency of the main case. The Additional District Munsiff's Court (Thirumanagalam) rejected the petition, holding that petitioners failed to demonstrate: (1) a prima facie case with merit, and (2) irreparable loss if the injunction were denied. The court found no substantive evidence or documents supporting their claims and dismissed the interim application without costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case 182/2023 Summary Interim Application 3/2023 - DISMISSED Petitioners Jeyaraman and Aasha sought an interim injunction to restrain the respondent revenue officials from interfering with their possession of property during the pendency of the main case. The Additional District Munsiff's Court (Thirumanagalam) rejected the petition, holding that petitioners failed to demonstrate: (1) a prima facie case with merit, and (2) irreparable loss if the injunction were denied. The court found no substantive evidence or documents supporting their claims and dismissed the interim application without costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts