Mohamed Amjath vs Mathivanan — 90/2024
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section O7R1. Status: Part Heard. Next hearing: 08th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNMY090041932024
Next Hearing
08th June 2026
Filing Number
158/2024
Filing Date
20-12-2024
Registration No
90/2024
Registration Date
20-12-2024
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Tharangambadi
Judge
1-District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Tharangambadi
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Mohamed Amjath
Adv. Thiru.K.BALAMURUGAN
Respondent(s)
Mathivanan
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Tharangambadi
Part Heard
Part Heard
Part Heard
Part Heard
Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 20-04-2026 | Part Heard |
| 30-03-2026 | Part Heard |
| 12-03-2026 | Part Heard |
| 26-02-2026 | Part Heard |
| 12-02-2026 | Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 90/2024 (Mohamed Amjath v. Mathivanan) Court: District Civil and Criminal Court, Tarangambadi Date: 12.03.2026 The court examined petitioner Mohamed Amjath's testimony regarding a disputed agricultural property. Amjath claimed he purchased the land from a power of attorney holder in April 2024 and later discovered the respondent cultivating it. After being stopped, Amjath filed a police complaint, which police referred as a civil matter. During cross-examination, Amjath admitted he had not verified prior possession details, knew nothing of the respondent's long-term cultivation, and had not negotiated directly for possession. The court found insufficient grounds for the case to proceed, ruling the matter is primarily civil in nature and should be resolved through civil courts rather than criminal proceedings. The petition was dismissed/case was ordered to be pursued through appropriate civil remedies. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 90/2024 (Mohamed Amjath v. Mathivanan) Court: District Civil and Criminal Court, Tarangambadi Date: 12.03.2026 The court examined petitioner Mohamed Amjath's testimony regarding a disputed agricultural property. Amjath claimed he purchased the land from a power of attorney holder in April 2024 and later discovered the respondent cultivating it. After being stopped, Amjath filed a police complaint, which police referred as a civil matter. During cross-examination, Amjath admitted he had not verified prior possession details, knew nothing of the respondent's long-term cultivation, and had not negotiated directly for possession. The court found insufficient grounds for the case to proceed, ruling the matter is primarily civil in nature and should be resolved through civil courts rather than criminal proceedings. The petition was dismissed/case was ordered to be pursued through appropriate civil remedies. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts