muthu vs pandi Advocate - M.Ponnambalam — 1000226/2018
Case under Coalbearingareas(acquisitionanddevelopment)amendmentandvalidationact Section 27(c). Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 01st June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNMD130003012018
Next Hearing
01st June 2026
Filing Number
300/2018
Filing Date
30-08-2018
Registration No
1000226/2018
Registration Date
30-08-2018
Court
District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam
Judge
2-Additional District Munsif, Thirumangalam
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
muthu
Adv. V.Bakciyaraj
Respondent(s)
pandi Advocate - M.Ponnambalam
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Additional District Munsif, Thirumangalam
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 27-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 16-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 12-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 23-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 17-02-2026 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Court: Additional District Munsiff Court, Thirumankaalam (Tamil Nadu) Case: I.A. No. 13/2026 and I.A. No. 14/2026 in O.S. No. 226/2018 Date: February 17, 2026 Outcome: The court dismissed the interlocutory applications (I.A. No. 13/2026 and I.A. No. 14/2026) filed by the defendant/appellant. The court held that reopening the defendant's pleadings and allowing amendments to the counter-claim would be inappropriate at this stage, as the main suit is pending for plaintiff's arguments. The court found that making such modifications would delay justice and alter the case's nature mid-proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Court: Additional District Munsiff Court, Thirumankaalam (Tamil Nadu) Case: I.A. No. 13/2026 and I.A. No. 14/2026 in O.S. No. 226/2018 Date: February 17, 2026 Outcome: The court dismissed the interlocutory applications (I.A. No. 13/2026 and I.A. No. 14/2026) filed by the defendant/appellant. The court held that reopening the defendant's pleadings and allowing amendments to the counter-claim would be inappropriate at this stage, as the main suit is pending for plaintiff's arguments. The court found that making such modifications would delay justice and alter the case's nature mid-proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts