Christopher Ponnan vs Holy Redeemer Finance Corporation rep. by its Iruthaiyaraj — 86/2022
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Or.7r.1. Disposed: Contested--Decreed without cost on 10th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNMY070001402022
Filing Number
176/2022
Filing Date
05-Apr-2022
Registration No
86/2022
Registration Date
06-Apr-2022
Court
District Munsif Court, Sirkali
Judge
1-District Munsif
Decision Date
10-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Decreed without cost
Last updated 26-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Christopher Ponnan
Adv. M.Sudha
Respondent(s)
-
1.Holy Redeemer Finance Corporation rep. by its Iruthaiyaraj
-
2.Sub Registar
Adv. Thiru S.Muthukumar
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
10-Mar-2026
Copy of Judgment/OrderView PDF
Court Decision Summary The District Munsiff Court, Sirkali allowed the plaintiff's suit and declared that a mortgage loan of ₹10,000 taken on 23.11.1990 against a mortgaged property has been fully repaid by the plaintiff with no outstanding balance. The court ordered the first defendant (lender) and second defendant (registration office) to issue a discharge receipt confirming the loan's closure, rejecting the defendants' arguments that procedural requirements prevented releasing the discharge document. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
10-Mar-2026
Disposed
District Munsif
-
24-Feb-2026
Judgement
District Munsif
-
20-Feb-2026
Arguments
District Munsif
-
18-Feb-2026
Arguments
District Munsif
-
09-Feb-2026
Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF
-
09-Feb-2026
Arguments
District Munsif
-
03-Feb-2026
Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF
-
03-Feb-2026
Trial
District Munsif
-
08-Dec-2025
Trial
District Munsif
-
28-Nov-2025
Trial
District Munsif
-
18-Nov-2025
Trial
District Munsif
-
06-Oct-2025
Trial
District Munsif
-
14-Aug-2025
Trial
District Munsif
-
08-Jul-2025
Trial
District Munsif
-
18-Jun-2025
Additional Written Statement
District Munsif
-
21-Mar-2025
Additional Written Statement
District Munsif
-
25-Feb-2025
Additional Written Statement
District Munsif
-
07-Jan-2025
Additional Written Statement
District Munsif
-
04-Dec-2024
Additional Written Statement
District Munsif
-
05-Nov-2024
Additional Written Statement
District Munsif
-
26-Sep-2024
Additional Written Statement
District Munsif
-
14-Aug-2024
Additional Written Statement
District Munsif
-
15-Jul-2024
Additional Written Statement
District Munsif
-
20-Jun-2024
Additional Written Statement
District Munsif
-
25-Apr-2024
Additional Written Statement
District Munsif
-
22-Apr-2024
Amendment
District Munsif
-
26-Mar-2024
Amendment
District Munsif
-
13-Mar-2024
Amendment
District Munsif
-
01-Mar-2024
Steps
District Munsif
-
22-Feb-2024
Steps
District Munsif
-
20-Feb-2024
Steps
District Munsif
-
07-Feb-2024
Steps
District Munsif
-
29-Jan-2024
IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending
District Munsif
-
23-Jan-2024
Trial
District Munsif
-
30-Nov-2023
Trial
District Munsif
-
31-Oct-2023
Trial
District Munsif
-
28-Aug-2023
Trial
District Munsif
-
14-Jun-2023
Trial
District Munsif
-
26-Apr-2023
Trial
District Munsif
-
11-Apr-2023
Issues
District Munsif
-
23-Mar-2023
Issues
District Munsif
-
09-Mar-2023
Steps
District Munsif
-
10-Feb-2023
Steps
District Munsif
-
08-Feb-2023
Steps
District Munsif
-
19-Jan-2023
Steps
District Munsif
-
13-Dec-2022
Steps
District Munsif
-
04-Nov-2022
Steps
District Munsif
-
14-Oct-2022
Steps
District Munsif
-
29-Sep-2022
Steps
District Munsif
-
21-Sep-2022
Written Statement
District Munsif
-
12-Aug-2022
Written Statement
District Munsif
-
24-Jun-2022
Written Statement
District Munsif
-
20-Apr-2022
Written Statement
District Munsif
-
06-Apr-2022
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
05-Apr-2022
Case filed
Registration No. 86/2022
Court Decision Summary The District Munsiff Court, Sirkali allowed the plaintiff's suit and declared that a mortgage loan of ₹10,000 taken on 23.11.1990 against a mortgaged property has been fully repaid by the plaintiff with no outstanding balance. The court ordered the first defendant (lender) and second defendant (registration office) to issue a discharge receipt confirming the loan's closure, rejecting the defendants' arguments that procedural requirements prevented releasing the discharge document. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts