K.Paramasivam vs T.Chelladurai and 23others Advocate - K.Sulthan Allowdhin and K.S. Prabakaran — 100208/2012
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U/oVIIRule1ofcpc. Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 01st July 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNMD150002552012
Next Hearing
01st July 2026
Filing Date
30-04-2012
Registration No
100208/2012
Registration Date
19-06-2012
Court
District Munsif Court, Melur
Judge
1-District Munsif, Melur.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
K.Paramasivam
Adv. D.Jeyam
Respondent(s)
T.Chelladurai and 23others Advocate - K.Sulthan Allowdhin and K.S. Prabakaran
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif, Melur.
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-06-2026 | Arguments |
| 08-06-2026 | Arguments |
| 02-06-2026 | Arguments |
| 15-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 25-03-2026 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
Summary of O.S.No.208/2012 (K.Paramasivam v. T.Chelladurai and 23 others) Order Date: 10.02.2026 A witness was examined and cross-examined in this civil suit concerning agricultural land. The witness testified about possession and cultivation of the disputed land for 30 years and the purchase of the property by defendants 2 and 3 on 11.10.2010. However, the witness could not provide documentary evidence for his claims regarding cultivation wages or the agricultural nature of the land. The court found the witness's testimony inconsistent and unreliable due to lack of supporting evidence. The case was adjourned for further proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of O.S.No.208/2012 (K.Paramasivam v. T.Chelladurai and 23 others) Order Date: 10.02.2026 A witness was examined and cross-examined in this civil suit concerning agricultural land. The witness testified about possession and cultivation of the disputed land for 30 years and the purchase of the property by defendants 2 and 3 on 11.10.2010. However, the witness could not provide documentary evidence for his claims regarding cultivation wages or the agricultural nature of the land. The court found the witness's testimony inconsistent and unreliable due to lack of supporting evidence. The case was adjourned for further 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