PALANI S vs PADMANABAN S — 2/2019
Case under Specificreliefact Section OR7R1SEC26. Status: Judgement. Next hearing: 24th April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNRP010000042019
Next Hearing
24th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
4/2019
Filing Date
02-01-2019
Registration No
2/2019
Registration Date
07-01-2019
Court
Principal District Court, Ranipet
Judge
2-I Additional District Judge, Ranipet
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
PALANI S
Adv. SATHIYAMOORTHI T V
USHARANI P
Adv. SATHIYAMOORTHI T V
Respondent(s)
PADMANABAN S
PAULKUMAR S
Hearing History
Judge: 2-I Additional District Judge, Ranipet
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
IA Pending
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 08-04-2026 | Judgement | |
| 01-04-2026 | Arguments | |
| 25-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 18-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 16-03-2026 | IA Pending |
Interim Orders
Summary: The application filed by defendants S. Padmanaban and S. Balkumar seeking permission to examine the 1st defendant as a witness (DW1) under Order 18, Rule 3(a) CPC has been dismissed. The court found that the 2nd defendant had already been examined as DW1 on behalf of both defendants, other witnesses (DW2 and DW3) had been examined, and the defendants failed to file separate written statements. The court also noted that the suit has been pending since 2019 and the defendants were already provided sufficient opportunity for witness examination, with repeated petitions causing trial delays. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The application filed by defendants S. Padmanaban and S. Balkumar seeking permission to examine the 1st defendant as a witness (DW1) under Order 18, Rule 3(a) CPC has been dismissed. The court found that the 2nd defendant had already been examined as DW1 on behalf of both defendants, other witnesses (DW2 and DW3) had been examined, and the defendants failed to file separate written statements. The court also noted that the suit has been pending since 2019 and the defendants were already provided sufficient opportunity for witness examination, with repeated petitions causing trial delays. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts