Kamala vs Anandhasiva — 62/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Order7,Rule1. Status: IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending. Next hearing: 09th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNRM010018292024
Next Hearing
09th June 2026
Filing Number
218/2024
Filing Date
28-03-2024
Registration No
62/2024
Registration Date
29-04-2024
Court
Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram
Judge
2-Additional District Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Kamala
Adv. Thiru. N.Balaji
Kokila
Noorulkavas
Abirami
Respondent(s)
Anandhasiva
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Additional District Judge
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 22-04-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 16-04-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 30-03-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 26-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 24-03-2026 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
In this Original Suit (OS. 62/2024) from Ramanathapuram district dated 24.02.2026, the court recorded the cross-examination testimony of the plaintiff (Anandhasivaa) regarding property ownership, family matters, and distribution of assets among siblings. The court found several of the plaintiff's claims to be incorrect, including denials about joint farming, jewelry given to other siblings, and the reasons for filing the suit. The judgment appears to focus on establishing facts through cross-examination rather than issuing a final substantive order on the main dispute. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
In this Original Suit (OS. 62/2024) from Ramanathapuram district dated 24.02.2026, the court recorded the cross-examination testimony of the plaintiff (Anandhasivaa) regarding property ownership, family matters, and distribution of assets among siblings. The court found several of the plaintiff's claims to be incorrect, including denials about joint farming, jewelry given to other siblings, and the reasons for filing the suit. The judgment appears to focus on establishing facts through cross-examination rather than issuing a final substantive order on the main dispute. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts