SUBHASHINI vs UTHIRANI Advocate - LAKSHMANAN D — 200048/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 7 R 1 & 26. Status: Issues. Next hearing: 27th April 2026.

Issues Next hearing 27-Apr-2026 this date has passed

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNRP010019842024

Filing Number

200240/2024

Filing Date

30-Apr-2024

Registration No

200048/2024

Registration Date

30-Apr-2024

Court

Principal District Court, Ranipet

Judge

2-I Additional District Judge, Ranipet

Last updated 19-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 7 R 1 & 26

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SUBHASHINI

    Adv. SAMPATHKUMAR S P

  2. 2.SARAVANAN

    Adv. SAMPATHKUMAR S P

  3. 3.3. RENUKA

    Adv. SAMPATHKUMAR S P

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.UTHIRANI Advocate - LAKSHMANAN D

  2. 2.Varadhan

    Adv. LAKSHMANAN D

  3. 3.Mohandass

    Adv. LAKSHMANAN D

  4. 4.Dhanam

  5. 5.Nagalakshmi

  6. 6.Rani

  7. 7.Vimala

  8. 8.Raghupathi

    Adv. VARADAN S

  9. 9.R. Deepak

  10. 10.Sadhanandham Issac

    Adv. nazrin bagam

  11. 11.Beenakoshy

  12. 12.Dr. Regikurien

  13. 13.Dr. Krishna Priya Ramachandran

  14. 14.S. Venkatesan

Case History

  1. 27-Apr-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 18-Apr-2026

    Issues

    I Additional District Judge, Ranipet

  3. 09-Mar-2026

    Issues

    I Additional District Judge, Ranipet

  4. 09-Feb-2026

    Issues

    I Additional District Judge, Ranipet

  5. 12-Jan-2026

    Issues

    I Additional District Judge, Ranipet

  6. 03-Dec-2025

    Copy of Judgment/OrderView PDF

  7. 03-Dec-2025

    Copy of Judgment/OrderView PDF

    Summary The I Additional District Judge, Ranipet dismissed the petition filed by the 8th defendant (Raghupathi) seeking rejection of the plaint. The court held that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law that cannot be decided at the rejection stage, and the plaintiffs' averment about gaining knowledge of documents in August 2023 must be tested at trial. The court also ruled that the plaintiffs, being non-parties to the disputed documents, properly valued the declaration reliefs under Section 25(d) rather than Section 40 of the court fee act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  8. 03-Dec-2025

    Issues

    I Additional District Judge, Ranipet

  9. 19-Nov-2025

    IA Pending

    I Additional District Judge, Ranipet

  10. 12-Nov-2025

    IA Pending

    I Additional District Judge, Ranipet

  11. 29-Oct-2025

    Publication

    I Additional District Judge, Ranipet

  12. 06-Oct-2025

    Publication

    I Additional District Judge, Ranipet

  13. 08-Sep-2025

    Steps

    I Additional District Judge, Ranipet

  14. 11-Aug-2025

    Issue of Service

    I Additional District Judge, Ranipet

  15. 28-Jul-2025

    Service Pending

    I Additional District Judge, Ranipet

  16. 24-Jun-2025

    Issue of Service

    I Additional District Judge, Ranipet

  17. 08-Apr-2025

    For further Proceedings

    I Additional District Judge, Ranipet

  18. 05-Apr-2025

    Issue of Service

    I Additional District Judge, Ranipet

  19. 18-Feb-2025

    Issue of Service

    I Additional District Judge, Ranipet

  20. 08-Jan-2025

    Written Statement

    I Additional District Judge, Ranipet

  21. 06-Dec-2024

    Written Statement

    I Additional District Judge, Ranipet

  22. 06-Nov-2024

    Written Statement

    I Additional District Judge, Ranipet

  23. 12-Sep-2024

    Written Statement

    I Additional District Judge, Ranipet

  24. 23-Jul-2024

    Written Statement

    I Additional District Judge, Ranipet

  25. 13-Jun-2024

    Issue of Service

    I Additional District Judge, Ranipet

  26. 30-Apr-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  27. 30-Apr-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 200048/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The I Additional District Judge, Ranipet dismissed the petition filed by the 8th defendant (Raghupathi) seeking rejection of the plaint. The court held that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law that cannot be decided at the rejection stage, and the plaintiffs' averment about gaining knowledge of documents in August 2023 must be tested at trial. The court also ruled that the plaintiffs, being non-parties to the disputed documents, properly valued the declaration reliefs under Section 25(d) rather than Section 40 of the court fee act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case