Sathyamoorthi vs Maruthupandi Advocate - Died — 1000001/2017
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O21R11. Status: EA Pending. Next hearing: 06th April 2026.
EP - Execution Petition(OS)
CNR: TNRM050000242017
Next Hearing
06th April 2026
Filing Number
1000001/2017
Filing Date
22-10-2016
Registration No
1000001/2017
Registration Date
22-10-2016
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Rameswaram
Judge
1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sathyamoorthi
Adv. B.Sundarrajan
Respondent(s)
Maruthupandi Advocate - Died
Ramamoorthy
Adv. exparte
Pirunthavanam
Adv. exparte
Chinnathai @ Senbagam
Adv. exparte
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
EA Pending
EA Pending
EA Pending
EA Pending
EA Pending
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | EA Pending |
| 06-02-2026 | EA Pending |
| 18-12-2025 | EA Pending |
| 27-11-2025 | EA Pending |
| 08-10-2025 | EA Pending |
Interim Orders
Summary The court allowed the execution petition (EP No. 1/2017) filed by the petitioner against defendants 1-4 in Original Suit No. 102/2002. The petitioner had obtained a decree for possession of a property on 26.02.2008 and subsequently filed this execution petition on 01.03.2017 seeking delivery of the property. The court found that the third defendant had constructed a compound wall on an adjoining property belonging to her, which obstructed possession, but rejected her claim to intervene as she lacked legal standing to challenge the original decree after being added as a party belatedly through higher court intervention in 2023. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court allowed the execution petition (EP No. 1/2017) filed by the petitioner against defendants 1-4 in Original Suit No. 102/2002. The petitioner had obtained a decree for possession of a property on 26.02.2008 and subsequently filed this execution petition on 01.03.2017 seeking delivery of the property. The court found that the third defendant had constructed a compound wall on an adjoining property belonging to her, which obstructed possession, but rejected her claim to intervene as she lacked legal standing to challenge the original decree after being added as a party belatedly through higher court intervention in 2023. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts