Paulchamy and 6 others vs Rajammal and 5 others Advocate - P.G. Alagarsamy — 100257/2010

Case under Coalbearingareas(acquisitionanddevelopment)amendmentandvalidationact Section Order7Rule1. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 02nd June 2026.

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNMD130002802010

Evidence

Next Hearing

02nd June 2026

Filing Date

31-05-2010

Registration No

100257/2010

Registration Date

31-05-2010

Court

District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam

Judge

1-Principal District Munsif,Thirumangalam

Acts & Sections

CoalBearingAreas(AcquisitionandDevelopment)AmendmentandValidationAct Section Order7Rule1

Petitioner(s)

Paulchamy and 6 others

Adv. M.Ponnambalam

Koodammal

Adv. ALAGARSAMY P G

Seeniammal (died)

Minnalkodi

Anushya

Jothibasu

Mohankumar

Ramaiah (died)

Muruganandam

Kavitha

Saroja

Vinodhini

Vinoth

Vijayalakshmi

Respondent(s)

Rajammal and 5 others Advocate - P.G. Alagarsamy

Raju (died)

Pandi

Jeyachandrapandian

Jeyasudha

Amernathsanth

Sekar (died)

Uma maheswari

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Principal District Munsif,Thirumangalam

30-04-2026

Evidence

22-04-2026

Orders

18-04-2026

IA Pending

16-04-2026

IA Pending

10-04-2026

Evidence

Interim Orders

30-04-2026
Copy of Judgment/Order

Court Order Summary Petition Dismissed. The Primary Court (FAC), Tirupanmalai, dismissed the petitioners' (defendants 1-5) interim petition seeking to examine the Revenue Survey Officer as a witness regarding property survey details. The court held that the petitioner's request was legally untenable, as the Survey Officer can only testify based on official records and survey maps (S.A. 4 plan), not independently. The original case, pending since 2010, involves a land dispute among multiple parties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Court Order Summary Petition Dismissed. The Primary Court (FAC), Tirupanmalai, dismissed the petitioners' (defendants 1-5) interim petition seeking to examine the Revenue Survey Officer as a witness regarding property survey details. The court held that the petitioner's request was legally untenable, as the Survey Officer can only testify based on official records and survey maps (S.A. 4 plan), not independently. The original case, pending since 2010, involves a land dispute among multiple parties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case