Pavunthai / Meenakshi vs Natarajan and another — 2/2025
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section 43R1CPC. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 06th April 2026.
CMA - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
CNR: TNMD240002362025
Filing Number
232/2025
Filing Date
21-06-2025
Registration No
2/2025
Registration Date
21-06-2025
Court
Sub Court, Usilampatti
Judge
3-Sub Judge, Usilampatti
Decision Date
06th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Pavunthai / Meenakshi
Adv. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM A
Respondent(s)
Natarajan and another
Dilipan
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Sub Judge, Usilampatti
Disposed
Orders
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 30-03-2026 | Orders |
| 16-03-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 12-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 05-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Subsidiary Court in Usilampatti rejected the appellant's property appeal (Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 02/2025) challenging an Interim Application order dated 10.03.2025. The court found that since the plaintiff sought injunctive relief in the original suit and the interim relief sought were identical, granting interim injunction would be improper. The court upheld the lower court's decision, holding that the appellant failed to adequately present evidence regarding land partition claims and could not pursue interim relief without first establishing substantive rights in the main suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Subsidiary Court in Usilampatti rejected the appellant's property appeal (Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 02/2025) challenging an Interim Application order dated 10.03.2025. The court found that since the plaintiff sought injunctive relief in the original suit and the interim relief sought were identical, granting interim injunction would be improper. The court upheld the lower court's decision, holding that the appellant failed to adequately present evidence regarding land partition claims and could not pursue interim relief without first establishing substantive rights in the main suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts