M/s.Prabhu Ram Builders Pvt.Ltd. Rep.by its Managing Director M.G.Ramchandra vs Palanivel — 29/2022

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section OrderVII,rule1. Status: IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending. Next hearing: 26th March 2026.

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNRM050026412022

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

Next Hearing

26th March 2026

Filing Number

31/2022

Filing Date

02-06-2022

Registration No

29/2022

Registration Date

02-06-2022

Court

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Rameswaram

Judge

1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section OrderVII,rule1

Petitioner(s)

M/s.Prabhu Ram Builders Pvt.Ltd. Rep.by its Managing Director M.G.Ramchandra

Adv. S. Hariharan

V.S.R.M. Chandra

Adv. S. Hariharan

Respondent(s)

Palanivel

Hearing History

Judge: 1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

06-03-2026

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

04-03-2026

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

25-02-2026

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

24-02-2026

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

16-02-2026

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

Interim Orders

06-04-2023
I A order

PETITION DISMISSED The District Munsiff and Arbitration Court, Rameswaram rejected the petition (I.A. No. 02/2022) seeking temporary injunction to prevent the defendant from altering a 39-cent property. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case with clean hands, as they could not provide documentary evidence of joint possession or explain why specific portions were transferred to the defendant in 2021. Additionally, the balance of convenience did not favor granting the injunction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

PETITION DISMISSED The District Munsiff and Arbitration Court, Rameswaram rejected the petition (I.A. No. 02/2022) seeking temporary injunction to prevent the defendant from altering a 39-cent property. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case with clean hands, as they could not provide documentary evidence of joint possession or explain why specific portions were transferred to the defendant in 2021. Additionally, the balance of convenience did not favor granting the injunction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Rameswaram All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case