PRIYADARSHNI K vs MURUGAVALLI D AND ANOTHER — 100/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U/S 27(C). Status: Issues. Next hearing: 17th July 2026.

Issues Next hearing 17-Jul-2026 this date has passed

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNMD190001062025

e-Filing Number

01-08-2025

Filing Number

105/2025

Filing Date

01-Aug-2025

Registration No

100/2025

Registration Date

01-Aug-2025

Court

District Munsif Court, Vadipatti

Judge

1-District Munsif, Vadipatti.

Last updated 14-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section U/S 27(C)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PRIYADARSHNI K

    Adv. M SADAIMUNI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MURUGAVALLI D AND ANOTHER

  2. 2.RAJENDIRAN U

Case History

  1. 17-Jul-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 06-Jun-2026

    Issues

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  3. 03-Jun-2026

    Issues

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  4. 28-Apr-2026

    Issues

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  5. 10-Apr-2026

    Copy of Judgment/Order

  6. 10-Apr-2026

    Copy of Judgment/Order

    Case Summary: OS 100/2025 Outcome: Petition DISMISSED. Temporary injunction was NOT granted. Key Facts: Priyadharshni sought a temporary injunction to restrain Murugavalli and Rajendiran from disturbing her possession of property with a septic tank that she purchased in 2021-2022. She alleged they unlawfully attempted to demolish the septic tank on 10.07.2025. Respondents denied the disturbance, claiming the petitioner was harassing them and blocking their common pathway access. Reasoning: While the court found a prima facie case existed in petitioner's favor regarding her lawful possession, it held that petitioner failed to prove the second and third essential requirements for temporary injunction: balance of convenience and irreparable injury. Critically, petitioner provided no evidence that respondents actually made the alleged disturbance—this must be proven during the main suit trial, not the interim application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  7. 10-Apr-2026

    Issues

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  8. 08-Apr-2026

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  9. 26-Mar-2026

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  10. 11-Mar-2026

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  11. 12-Feb-2026

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  12. 08-Jan-2026

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  13. 16-Dec-2025

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  14. 01-Dec-2025

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  15. 03-Nov-2025

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  16. 06-Oct-2025

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  17. 01-Sep-2025

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  18. 01-Aug-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  19. 01-Aug-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 100/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: OS 100/2025 Outcome: Petition DISMISSED. Temporary injunction was NOT granted. Key Facts: Priyadharshni sought a temporary injunction to restrain Murugavalli and Rajendiran from disturbing her possession of property with a septic tank that she purchased in 2021-2022. She alleged they unlawfully attempted to demolish the septic tank on 10.07.2025. Respondents denied the disturbance, claiming the petitioner was harassing them and blocking their common pathway access. Reasoning: While the court found a prima facie case existed in petitioner's favor regarding her lawful possession, it held that petitioner failed to prove the second and third essential requirements for temporary injunction: balance of convenience and irreparable injury. Critically, petitioner provided no evidence that respondents actually made the alleged disturbance—this must be proven during the main suit trial, not the interim application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case