Magalingam vs Sappani Advocate - Exparte — 26/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Or7R1. Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 03rd June 2026.

Arguments Next hearing 03-Jun-2026 this date has passed

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNRM090000342024

Filing Number

41/2024

Filing Date

04-Oct-2024

Registration No

26/2024

Registration Date

04-Oct-2024

Court

District Munsif Court, Mudhukulathur

Judge

1-District Munsif

Last updated 24-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section Or7R1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Magalingam

    Adv. Mr.Y.T.Ansari

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Sappani Advocate - Exparte

  2. 2.K.Pushpavalli

    Adv. Mr.Ali akbar

  3. 3.M.Shanmugavalli

    Adv. Mr.Ali akbar

  4. 4.Jothimurugan

    Adv. Mr.Karthikeyan

Case History

  1. 03-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 29-Apr-2026

    Arguments

    District Munsif

  3. 15-Apr-2026

    Arguments

    District Munsif

  4. 26-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    District Munsif

  5. 12-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  6. 27-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  7. 16-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  8. 22-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  9. 19-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  10. 17-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  11. 08-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  12. 20-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  13. 10-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  14. 25-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  15. 13-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  16. 22-Sep-2025

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

    Case Summary: O.S.No.26/2024 Hearing Date: 22.09.2025 Outcome: Case adjourned with cross-examination of witnesses continuing. The plaintiff's witness was recalled, sworn in, and cross-examined by defendants 2-4 regarding a property dispute involving survey numbers 327/9A1 and 327/9A2 in Kandulavil village. The court found the plaintiff's testimony deficient on several material points, including lack of documentary evidence and contradictions regarding ancestral property ownership and maintenance expenses. No re-cross-examination was allowed, and the hearing concluded at 11:45 AM. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  17. 22-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  18. 10-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  19. 28-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  20. 07-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  21. 23-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  22. 03-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  23. 25-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  24. 12-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  25. 04-Jun-2025

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  26. 04-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  27. 29-Apr-2025

    Trial

    District Munsif

  28. 07-Apr-2025

    Trial

    District Munsif

  29. 02-Apr-2025

    Issues

    District Munsif

  30. 24-Mar-2025

    Issues

    District Munsif

  31. 08-Mar-2025

    Issues

    District Munsif

  32. 25-Feb-2025

    Written Statement

    District Munsif

  33. 12-Feb-2025

    Written Statement

    District Munsif

  34. 11-Feb-2025

    Written Statement

    District Munsif

  35. 07-Jan-2025

    Written Statement

    District Munsif

  36. 05-Dec-2024

    Written Statement

    District Munsif

  37. 05-Nov-2024

    Appearance

    District Munsif

  38. 04-Oct-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  39. 04-Oct-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 26/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: O.S.No.26/2024 Hearing Date: 22.09.2025 Outcome: Case adjourned with cross-examination of witnesses continuing. The plaintiff's witness was recalled, sworn in, and cross-examined by defendants 2-4 regarding a property dispute involving survey numbers 327/9A1 and 327/9A2 in Kandulavil village. The court found the plaintiff's testimony deficient on several material points, including lack of documentary evidence and contradictions regarding ancestral property ownership and maintenance expenses. No re-cross-examination was allowed, and the hearing concluded at 11:45 AM. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case