P Nagendiran vs Parthipan — 21/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Order 21 Rule 11. Status: Counter. Next hearing: 09th April 2026.
EP - Execution Petition
CNR: TNRM010031982024
Next Hearing
09th April 2026
e-Filing Number
13-06-2024
Filing Number
401/2024
Filing Date
05-07-2024
Registration No
21/2024
Registration Date
05-07-2024
Court
Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram
Judge
1-Principal District Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
P Nagendiran
Adv. Mugil Arasan
Respondent(s)
Parthipan
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District Judge
Counter
Counter
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
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | Counter |
| 06-03-2026 | Counter |
| 27-02-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 23-02-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 07-02-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
Interim Orders
Court Order Summary Petition Dismissed with Cost. The Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram held that the petitioner (a tenant/lessee) is not a necessary party to the original money recovery suit (O.S. 69/2023) or its execution proceedings, and therefore cannot challenge the decree or obstruct property sale through court auction. The court emphasized that in a money recovery suit, only the debtor and creditor have privity of contract; a third-party tenant has no legal interest in the debt itself and cannot invoke Order 21 Rule 97 of C.P.C. to preemptively safeguard possession against execution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Order Summary Petition Dismissed with Cost. The Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram held that the petitioner (a tenant/lessee) is not a necessary party to the original money recovery suit (O.S. 69/2023) or its execution proceedings, and therefore cannot challenge the decree or obstruct property sale through court auction. The court emphasized that in a money recovery suit, only the debtor and creditor have privity of contract; a third-party tenant has no legal interest in the debt itself and cannot invoke Order 21 Rule 97 of C.P.C. to preemptively safeguard possession against execution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts