D.Jainulabdeen vs The State Rep. by its District Collector, Perambalur Advocate - Exparte — 173/2019
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Or.7,R.1. Status: Stay. Next hearing: 06th April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNPB060008692019
Next Hearing
06th April 2026
Filing Number
176/2019
Filing Date
29-11-2010
Registration No
173/2019
Registration Date
29-11-2010
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Veppanthattai
Judge
11-DISTRICT MUNSIF-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VEPPANTHATTAI.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
D.Jainulabdeen
Adv. P. SIVASANKARAN, B.A., B.L.,
Respondent(s)
The State Rep. by its District Collector, Perambalur Advocate - Exparte
State Govt of TN Rep by The District Revenue Divisional Officer
Adv. Exparte
State Govt of TN Rep by The Tashildar
Adv. Exparte
V. Vijaya
Hearing History
Judge: 11-DISTRICT MUNSIF-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VEPPANTHATTAI.
Stay
Stay
Stay
Stay
Stay
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Stay |
| 21-01-2026 | Stay |
| 03-12-2025 | Stay |
| 14-11-2025 | Stay |
| 03-11-2025 | Stay |
Interim Orders
Court Order Summary Petition DISMISSED. The court rejected the petitioner's application to amend the plaint's description of property dimensions under CPC Rule 6(17). The court held that since the case had already proceeded to trial with cross-examination of witnesses and the amendment was filed substantially after commencement of trial proceedings, allowing such amendment would cause irreparable prejudice to the defendants. The court also noted the petitioner's lack of diligence in seeking correction despite discovering the discrepancy earlier. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Order Summary Petition DISMISSED. The court rejected the petitioner's application to amend the plaint's description of property dimensions under CPC Rule 6(17). The court held that since the case had already proceeded to trial with cross-examination of witnesses and the amendment was filed substantially after commencement of trial proceedings, allowing such amendment would cause irreparable prejudice to the defendants. The court also noted the petitioner's lack of diligence in seeking correction despite discovering the discrepancy earlier. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts