Jeyaraman and others vs The state of Tamil Nadul, rep. its District Collector, Madurai. — 182/2023

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 27(c). Status: Trial. Next hearing: 23rd June 2026.

Trial Next hearing 23-Jun-2026 this date has passed

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNMD130001932023

Filing Number

254/2023

Filing Date

18-Jul-2023

Registration No

182/2023

Registration Date

18-Jul-2023

Court

District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam

Judge

2-Additional District Munsif, Thirumangalam

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 27(c)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Jeyaraman and others

    Adv. M.Dhanapandian

  2. 2.Aasha

    Adv. M.Dhanapandian

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The state of Tamil Nadul, rep. its District Collector, Madurai.

  2. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,

  3. 3.The Tahsildar,

  4. 4.The Revenue Inspector

  5. 5.The Village Administrative Officer

Case History

  1. 23-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 16-Apr-2026

    Trial

    Additional District Munsif, Thirumangalam

  3. 16-Mar-2026

    Trial

    Additional District Munsif, Thirumangalam

  4. 06-Feb-2026

    Trial

    Additional District Munsif, Thirumangalam

  5. 19-Nov-2025

    Trial

    Additional District Munsif, Thirumangalam

  6. 10-Oct-2025

    Trial

    Additional District Munsif, Thirumangalam

  7. 01-Aug-2025

    Trial

    Additional District Munsif, Thirumangalam

  8. 16-Jun-2025

    Trial

    Additional District Munsif, Thirumangalam

  9. 03-Apr-2025

    Trial

    Additional District Munsif, Thirumangalam

  10. 18-Mar-2025

    Trial

    Additional District Munsif, Thirumangalam

  11. 20-Feb-2025

    Trial

    Additional District Munsif, Thirumangalam

  12. 01-Feb-2025

    Trial

    Additional District Munsif, Thirumangalam

  13. 10-Jan-2025

    Copy of Judgment/OrderView PDF

  14. 10-Jan-2025

    Copy of Judgment/OrderView PDF

    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.

  15. 10-Jan-2025

    Issues

    Additional District Munsif, Thirumangalam

  16. 20-Dec-2024

    Orders

    Additional District Munsif, Thirumangalam

  17. 10-Dec-2024

    IA Pending

    Additional District Munsif, Thirumangalam

  18. 20-Nov-2024

    IA Pending

    Additional District Munsif, Thirumangalam

  19. 15-Nov-2024

    IA Pending

    Additional District Munsif, Thirumangalam

  20. 16-Oct-2024

    Issues

    Additional District Munsif, Thirumangalam

  21. 20-Sep-2024

    IA Pending

    Additional District Munsif, Thirumangalam

  22. 31-Jul-2024

    IA Pending

    Additional District Munsif, Thirumangalam

  23. 11-Jul-2024

    IA Pending

    Additional District Munsif, Thirumangalam

  24. 01-Apr-2024

    Written Statement

    Additional District Munsif, Thirumangalam

  25. 13-Feb-2024

    Written Statement

    Additional District Munsif, Thirumangalam

  26. 30-Nov-2023

    Written Statement

    Additional District Munsif, Thirumangalam

  27. 14-Sep-2023

    Written Statement

    Additional District Munsif, Thirumangalam

  28. 18-Jul-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  29. 18-Jul-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 182/2023

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case