RISHI ALIAS GOVINDASAMY N vs THIRUNAVUKARASU G Advocate - EXPARTE — 15/2020
Case under Suitsvaluationact Section 25(d),25(d),27(c),27(c),27(c). Status: Trial. Next hearing: 01st June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNRP080000382020
Next Hearing
01st June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
50/2020
Filing Date
02-03-2020
Registration No
15/2020
Registration Date
02-03-2020
Court
District Munsif Court, Arakkonam
Judge
4-District Munsif, Arakkonam
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
RISHI ALIAS GOVINDASAMY N
Adv. NAGARATHINAM P
Respondent(s)
THIRUNAVUKARASU G Advocate - EXPARTE
NANDHINI K
Adv. SAMPATHKUMAR S P
VENKATESAN G
Adv. SAMPATHKUMAR S P
THE JOINT SUB REGISTRAR II ARAKKONAM
Adv. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR
Adv. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION
Adv. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THE TAHSILDAR
Adv. EXPARTE
THE COLLECTOR OF RANIPET DISTRICT
Adv. EXPARTE
Hearing History
Judge: 4-District Munsif, Arakkonam
Trial
Evidence
Additional Issues
Additional Written Statement
Additional Written Statement
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 01-04-2026 | Trial | |
| 09-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 03-03-2026 | Additional Issues | |
| 16-02-2026 | Additional Written Statement | |
| 29-01-2026 | Additional Written Statement |
Interim Orders
SUMMARY The petition for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC was allowed. The petitioner sought to correct the survey number from 946/17A to 946/17B in the plaint for a declaration and injunction suit, as the certified copy of the 1995 sale deed and FMB sketch showed the actual survey number was 946/17B, though the property boundaries remained identical. The court found the amendment necessary to determine real disputes between parties and permitted it since the trial had not commenced, noting that amendments before trial commencement should be considered liberally and this amendment did not change the suit's nature. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
SUMMARY The petition for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC was allowed. The petitioner sought to correct the survey number from 946/17A to 946/17B in the plaint for a declaration and injunction suit, as the certified copy of the 1995 sale deed and FMB sketch showed the actual survey number was 946/17B, though the property boundaries remained identical. The court found the amendment necessary to determine real disputes between parties and permitted it since the trial had not commenced, noting that amendments before trial commencement should be considered liberally and this amendment did not change the suit's nature. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts