Vembu and another vs Thiruneelakandam and another Advocate - Tmt. V. SANTHI — 100081/2015
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section 27(c). Status: Trial. Next hearing: 29th April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNMY070001002015
Next Hearing
29th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Date
30-03-2015
Registration No
100081/2015
Registration Date
30-03-2015
Court
District Munsif Court, Sirkali
Judge
1-District Munsif
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Vembu and another
Adv. Thiru S.SUNDRAIYA
Sakkaravarthi
Adv. Thiru S.SUNDRAIYA
Respondent(s)
Thiruneelakandam and another Advocate - Tmt. V. SANTHI
Pandithurai
Adv. Tmt. V. SANTHI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif
Trial
Additional Issues
Additional Written Statement
Additional Written Statement
Additional Written Statement
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 18-04-2026 | Trial | |
| 08-04-2026 | Additional Issues | |
| 27-03-2026 | Additional Written Statement | |
| 16-03-2026 | Additional Written Statement | |
| 09-03-2026 | Additional Written Statement |
Interim Orders
SUMMARY: The petition filed by the plaintiff for amendment/correction of the plaint description in Original Case No. 81/2015 (Interim Application No. 3/2024) has been allowed. The District Munsiff's Court at Sirkazhi ordered amendments to the property description of "Schedule B" property, including corrections to measurements (9.43 square meters/102 square feet), removal of certain dimensions, and modification of court fee amounts. The court accepted the plaintiff's arguments regarding the old wall boundary and findings that the defendants had not encroached on the property by December 2017. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
SUMMARY: The petition filed by the plaintiff for amendment/correction of the plaint description in Original Case No. 81/2015 (Interim Application No. 3/2024) has been allowed. The District Munsiff's Court at Sirkazhi ordered amendments to the property description of "Schedule B" property, including corrections to measurements (9.43 square meters/102 square feet), removal of certain dimensions, and modification of court fee amounts. The court accepted the plaintiff's arguments regarding the old wall boundary and findings that the defendants had not encroached on the property by December 2017. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts