AYYAVU R vs Village Administrative Officer and 3 Others — 106/2025
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section U/s 27(c). Status: Trial. Next hearing: 31st July 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNMD190001122025
Next Hearing
31st July 2026
e-Filing Number
12-08-2025
Filing Number
111/2025
Filing Date
12-08-2025
Registration No
106/2025
Registration Date
13-08-2025
Court
District Munsif Court, Vadipatti
Judge
1-District Munsif, Vadipatti.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
AYYAVU R
Adv. SENTHUR PANDIAN S
Respondent(s)
Village Administrative Officer and 3 Others
Tasildar of vadipatti
Executive officer of vadipatti townpanchayat
The District Collector of Madurai
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif, Vadipatti.
Trial
Trial
Trial
Trial
Trial
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-06-2026 | Trial |
| 27-04-2026 | Trial |
| 23-03-2026 | Trial |
| 16-03-2026 | Trial |
| 07-02-2026 | Trial |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: AYYAVU R v. Village Administrative Officer and Others (OS No. 106/2025) Petition Dismissed. The District Munsif Court rejected petitioner Ayyavu's application for temporary injunction seeking to restrain government officials from interfering with his property possession in survey number S.No.364/2. The court found petitioner failed to establish the three mandatory requirements for temporary injunction: (1) prima facie case of legal right, (2) balance of convenience in his favor, and (3) risk of irreparable injury. Although petitioner proved possession of 1 cent through patta and property tax receipts, he provided no evidence that respondents actually attempted to dispossess him. The court noted respondent's High Court writ petition on similar grounds was dismissed, and that Fire Service Department allotment concerned neighboring land S.No.364/1, not the suit property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: AYYAVU R v. Village Administrative Officer and Others (OS No. 106/2025) Petition Dismissed. The District Munsif Court rejected petitioner Ayyavu's application for temporary injunction seeking to restrain government officials from interfering with his property possession in survey number S.No.364/2. The court found petitioner failed to establish the three mandatory requirements for temporary injunction: (1) prima facie case of legal right, (2) balance of convenience in his favor, and (3) risk of irreparable injury. Although petitioner proved possession of 1 cent through patta and property tax receipts, he provided no evidence that respondents actually attempted to dispossess him. The court noted respondent's High Court writ petition on similar grounds was dismissed, and that Fire Service Department allotment concerned neighboring land S.No.364/1, not the suit property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts