Malathi vs Amsavalli and 4 others — 92/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section or7 r1. Disposed: Uncontested--Dismissed on 01st April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNMD230002462025
Filing Number
287/2025
Filing Date
22-Apr-2025
Registration No
92/2025
Registration Date
30-Apr-2025
Court
Sub Court, Melur
Judge
2-Sub Judge, Melur
Decision Date
01-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Dismissed
Last updated 23-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Malathi
Adv. PERIYASAMY K
Respondent(s)
-
1.Amsavalli and 4 others
-
2.Anitha
-
3.Geetha
-
4.Ramani
-
5.Surya
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
01-Apr-2026
Copy of Judgment/OrderView PDF
-
01-Apr-2026
Copy of DecreeView PDF
Summary: The Subordinate Court at Melur dismissed S. Malathi's suit against five defendants for default on April 1, 2026. The plaintiff sought pre-emption rights for property in her possession as a cultivating tenant and an injunction against defendant interference, but the suit was dismissed because no trial was conducted, an adjournment petition was dismissed, and the plaintiff's counsel failed to appear for hearing. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
01-Apr-2026
Disposed
Sub Judge, Melur
-
12-Mar-2026
Trial
Sub Judge, Melur
-
24-Feb-2026
Trial
Sub Judge, Melur
-
10-Feb-2026
Trial
Sub Judge, Melur
-
05-Jan-2026
Trial
Sub Judge, Melur
-
03-Dec-2025
Written Statement
Sub Judge, Melur
-
04-Nov-2025
Written Statement
Sub Judge, Melur
-
24-Sep-2025
Written Statement
Sub Judge, Melur
-
18-Aug-2025
Written Statement
Sub Judge, Melur
-
23-Jul-2025
Written Statement
Sub Judge, Melur
-
18-Jun-2025
Issue of Service
Sub Judge, Melur
-
30-Apr-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
22-Apr-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 92/2025
Summary: The Subordinate Court at Melur dismissed S. Malathi's suit against five defendants for default on April 1, 2026. The plaintiff sought pre-emption rights for property in her possession as a cultivating tenant and an injunction against defendant interference, but the suit was dismissed because no trial was conducted, an adjournment petition was dismissed, and the plaintiff's counsel failed to appear for hearing. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts