Andichi vs Sethu Ammal — 128/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U/s27(C). Status: For further Proceedings. Next hearing: 15th July 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNMD190001852024
Filing Number
188/2024
Filing Date
25-Oct-2024
Registration No
128/2024
Registration Date
25-Oct-2024
Court
District Munsif Court, Vadipatti
Judge
1-District Munsif, Vadipatti.
Last updated 14-Jul-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Andichi
Adv. Tr.Babu Rajenderan
Respondent(s)
-
1.Sethu Ammal
Case History
-
15-Jul-2026
Next hearingPending
-
01-Jul-2026
For further Proceedings
District Munsif, Vadipatti.
-
17-Jun-2026
For further Proceedings
District Munsif, Vadipatti.
-
29-Apr-2026
For further Proceedings
District Munsif, Vadipatti.
-
26-Mar-2026
For further Proceedings
District Munsif, Vadipatti.
-
17-Feb-2026
Trial
District Munsif, Vadipatti.
-
18-Dec-2025
Trial
District Munsif, Vadipatti.
-
04-Dec-2025
Trial
District Munsif, Vadipatti.
-
16-Oct-2025
Trial
District Munsif, Vadipatti.
-
28-Aug-2025
Trial
District Munsif, Vadipatti.
-
16-Jul-2025
Trial
District Munsif, Vadipatti.
-
18-Jun-2025
Trial
District Munsif, Vadipatti.
-
08-Apr-2025
Trial
District Munsif, Vadipatti.
-
20-Mar-2025
Trial
District Munsif, Vadipatti.
-
07-Feb-2025
Trial
District Munsif, Vadipatti.
-
13-Dec-2024
Copy of Judgment/Order
Case Summary: Andichi v. Sethu Ammal (OS 128/2024) The District Munsif Court, Vadipatti dismissed the petitioner's application for temporary injunction on 13 December 2024. Andichi sought to restrain Sethu Ammal from interfering with her possession of property, claiming her deceased husband had entered into a sale agreement with the respondent and paid full consideration. The court found the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case, lacking documentary proof of the alleged sale agreement and lacking extension authorization for operating a brick kiln on the property beyond the one-year permission granted in 2005. The court held that with both parties claiming possession, the question could only be decided through full evidence at trial, and the petitioner did not demonstrate balance of convenience or irreparable injury necessary for temporary injunction relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
13-Dec-2024
Issues
District Munsif, Vadipatti.
-
09-Dec-2024
IA Pending
District Munsif, Vadipatti.
-
06-Dec-2024
IA Pending
District Munsif, Vadipatti.
-
29-Nov-2024
Written Statement
District Munsif, Vadipatti.
-
29-Oct-2024
Issue of Service
District Munsif, Vadipatti.
-
25-Oct-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
25-Oct-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 128/2024
Case Summary: Andichi v. Sethu Ammal (OS 128/2024) The District Munsif Court, Vadipatti dismissed the petitioner's application for temporary injunction on 13 December 2024. Andichi sought to restrain Sethu Ammal from interfering with her possession of property, claiming her deceased husband had entered into a sale agreement with the respondent and paid full consideration. The court found the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case, lacking documentary proof of the alleged sale agreement and lacking extension authorization for operating a brick kiln on the property beyond the one-year permission granted in 2005. The court held that with both parties claiming possession, the question could only be decided through full evidence at trial, and the petitioner did not demonstrate balance of convenience or irreparable injury necessary for temporary injunction relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts