Laxmi vs Karthigaimurugan and 5 others — 23/2025
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section U/s 25(a),U/s 25 (d). Status: Trial. Next hearing: 04th July 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNMD190000212025
Next Hearing
04th July 2026
e-Filing Number
29-01-2025
Filing Number
21/2025
Filing Date
01-02-2025
Registration No
23/2025
Registration Date
01-02-2025
Court
District Munsif Court, Vadipatti
Judge
1-District Munsif, Vadipatti.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Laxmi
Adv. M Vellaichamy
Respondent(s)
Karthigaimurugan and 5 others
The District collector madurai
The Dasildhar Vadipatti
Executive officer palamedu town panchayat
Head Surveyor Vadipatii Taluka
Subregistrar Alanganallur
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif, Vadipatti.
Trial
Trial
Trial
Issues
Written Statement
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-06-2026 | Trial |
| 22-04-2026 | Trial |
| 15-04-2026 | Trial |
| 23-03-2026 | Issues |
| 16-03-2026 | Written Statement |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: OS No. 23/2025 The District Munsif Court, Vadipatti dismissed a petition filed by defendant S. Karthikar Murugan under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint filed by plaintiff Lakshmi for declaration and injunction regarding disputed property. The defendant argued the suit lacked cause of action based on res judicata from a prior decree (OS No. 104/2020) and claimed oral partition rights to the disputed property item. The court held that the defendant's arguments raised new factual disputes regarding title and possession that cannot be decided at the plaint rejection stage; these issues require trial on merits. The petition was dismissed as it failed to identify any deficiency in the plaint itself falling within Order 7 Rule 11 grounds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: OS No. 23/2025 The District Munsif Court, Vadipatti dismissed a petition filed by defendant S. Karthikar Murugan under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint filed by plaintiff Lakshmi for declaration and injunction regarding disputed property. The defendant argued the suit lacked cause of action based on res judicata from a prior decree (OS No. 104/2020) and claimed oral partition rights to the disputed property item. The court held that the defendant's arguments raised new factual disputes regarding title and possession that cannot be decided at the plaint rejection stage; these issues require trial on merits. The petition was dismissed as it failed to identify any deficiency in the plaint itself falling within Order 7 Rule 11 grounds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts