G.Sanglipandi vs Nellamagam and 4 others — 8/2025
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section U/s.27(c). Status: IA Pending. Next hearing: 24th April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNMD190000062025
Next Hearing
24th April 2026
Filing Number
6/2025
Filing Date
07-01-2025
Registration No
8/2025
Registration Date
07-01-2025
Court
District Munsif Court, Vadipatti
Judge
1-District Munsif, Vadipatti.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
G.Sanglipandi
Adv. ARUMUGAM A
Respondent(s)
Nellamagam and 4 others
Karmagakannan
Chinnaiyan
Ramar
N.Karuppusamy
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif, Vadipatti.
IA Pending
For further Proceedings
For further Proceedings
For further Proceedings
For further Proceedings
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | IA Pending |
| 07-03-2026 | For further Proceedings |
| 17-02-2026 | For further Proceedings |
| 02-02-2026 | For further Proceedings |
| 07-01-2026 | For further Proceedings |
Interim Orders
Court Order Summary Petition Dismissed: The District Munsif Court, Vadipatti, dismissed the petitioner's application (IA No.2/2025) for temporary injunction dated October 8, 2025. The court found that the petitioner failed to establish the three essential criteria for granting temporary injunction: (1) prima facie case, (2) balance of convenience, and (3) irreparable injury. The respondents had produced evidence, including a Tahsildar's order (dated 01.11.2024) permitting them to worship the temple deity, which contradicted the petitioner's exclusive ownership claim, resulting in dismissal with no costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Order Summary Petition Dismissed: The District Munsif Court, Vadipatti, dismissed the petitioner's application (IA No.2/2025) for temporary injunction dated October 8, 2025. The court found that the petitioner failed to establish the three essential criteria for granting temporary injunction: (1) prima facie case, (2) balance of convenience, and (3) irreparable injury. The respondents had produced evidence, including a Tahsildar's order (dated 01.11.2024) permitting them to worship the temple deity, which contradicted the petitioner's exclusive ownership claim, resulting in dismissal with no costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts