Ramalingam vs Meenatchi Advocate - K. SANJEEVIRAJAN, B.A., B.L., — 716/2019
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section Or.7, R.1. Status: Ex-Parte Evidence. Next hearing: 20th April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNPB060018652019
Next Hearing
20th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
629/2019
Filing Date
18-04-2018
Registration No
716/2019
Registration Date
18-04-2018
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Veppanthattai
Judge
11-DISTRICT MUNSIF-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VEPPANTHATTAI.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ramalingam
Adv. N. TAMILSELVAN, B.A., B.L.,
Archunan
Adv. N. TAMILSELVAN, B.A., B.L.,
Respondent(s)
Meenatchi Advocate - K. SANJEEVIRAJAN, B.A., B.L.,
Dhanam
Adv. Exparte
The Sub Registrar,
Adv. Exparte
The District Collector Perambalur
Adv. Exparte
The Tashildar , Veppanthattai
Adv. Exparte
The Village Administrative officer,
Adv. Exparte
Hearing History
Judge: 11-DISTRICT MUNSIF-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VEPPANTHATTAI.
Ex-Parte Evidence
Ex-Parte Evidence
Ex-Parte Evidence
Ex-Parte Evidence
Ex-Parte Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Ex-Parte Evidence | |
| 09-03-2026 | Ex-Parte Evidence | |
| 23-01-2026 | Ex-Parte Evidence | |
| 17-12-2025 | Ex-Parte Evidence | |
| 19-11-2025 | Ex-Parte Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary: The District Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate Court at Veppanthattai allowed a petition filed under CPC Order 9 Rule 9 to restore a civil case (O.S. 716/2019) that was dismissed on 08.01.2024 due to the petitioners' default. The court found the petitioners' explanation regarding their absence—that they were misled about court proceedings—acceptable and permitted restoration of the case to enable them to present their defense, as justice required giving them an opportunity to prove their case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The District Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate Court at Veppanthattai allowed a petition filed under CPC Order 9 Rule 9 to restore a civil case (O.S. 716/2019) that was dismissed on 08.01.2024 due to the petitioners' default. The court found the petitioners' explanation regarding their absence—that they were misled about court proceedings—acceptable and permitted restoration of the case to enable them to present their defense, as justice required giving them an opportunity to prove their case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts