M/s. Sathiriya Nadar Uravinmurai Trust through its Ponnusamy vs M.K.S.Gururajan Advocate - Mr.V.Shanmugasundaram — 1/2021

Case under Leaseandrentcontrolact Section 21(3). Status: Part Heard. Next hearing: 09th June 2026.

OP - Original Petition

CNR: TNRM070006122021

Part Heard

Next Hearing

09th June 2026

Filing Number

47/2021

Filing Date

31-08-2021

Registration No

1/2021

Registration Date

31-08-2021

Court

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kamudhi

Judge

1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

Acts & Sections

LeaseandRentControlAct Section 21(3)
IA/3/2024 Classification : Reopen Petition Section M/s. Sathiriya Nadar Uravinmurai Trust through its PonnusamyM.K.S.Gururajan
IA/4/2024 Classification : Recall Petition Section M/s. Sathiriya Nadar Uravinmurai Trust through its PonnusamyM.K.S.Gururajan

Petitioner(s)

M/s. Sathiriya Nadar Uravinmurai Trust through its Ponnusamy

Adv. Tr.K.Rameshkannan

Respondent(s)

M.K.S.Gururajan Advocate - Mr.V.Shanmugasundaram

Hearing History

Judge: 1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

15-04-2026

Part Heard

01-04-2026

Part Heard

12-03-2026

Evidence

25-02-2026

Evidence

28-01-2026

Evidence

Interim Orders

25-02-2026
Copy of Oral Evidence/Deposition

Summary: In RLTOP No. 1/2021 before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kamuthi, the petitioner (Pannusamy) filed an affidavit on February 25, 2026, as the first witness under Rule 10 of the 1873 Act. The petitioner stated that the opposing party's shop operation prevents proper development of the garden/property and submitted photographic evidence (marked as Exhibit 4) supporting this claim. The petitioner requested the court to grant relief as per the petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: In RLTOP No. 1/2021 before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kamuthi, the petitioner (Pannusamy) filed an affidavit on February 25, 2026, as the first witness under Rule 10 of the 1873 Act. The petitioner stated that the opposing party's shop operation prevents proper development of the garden/property and submitted photographic evidence (marked as Exhibit 4) supporting this claim. The petitioner requested the court to grant relief as per the petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kamudhi All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case