FATHIMA K V vs UMMUKULSU C V Advocate - RAMAMOORTHY P — 103/2022
Case under Suitsvaluationact Section 27(c). Status: IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending. Next hearing: 05th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNRP080001982022
Next Hearing
05th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
269/2022
Filing Date
29-09-2022
Registration No
103/2022
Registration Date
18-10-2022
Court
District Munsif Court, Arakkonam
Judge
4-District Munsif, Arakkonam
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
FATHIMA K V
Adv. SEKAR D
Respondent(s)
UMMUKULSU C V Advocate - RAMAMOORTHY P
Hearing History
Judge: 4-District Munsif, Arakkonam
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
Counter
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
Counter
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 16-04-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending | |
| 27-03-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending | |
| 09-03-2026 | Counter | |
| 25-02-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending | |
| 29-01-2026 | Counter |
Interim Orders
CASE SUMMARY The District Munsif Court of Arakkonam dismissed the petitioner's interim injunction petition (IA.485/2022) filed under Order 39 CPC on October 30, 2025. The petitioner sought to restrain the respondent from interfering with her alleged possession of the disputed property, but the court found the petitioner failed to produce documentary evidence while the respondent adduced registration copies, partition deeds, and approved plans establishing a serious dispute over property ownership that can only be resolved at trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
CASE SUMMARY The District Munsif Court of Arakkonam dismissed the petitioner's interim injunction petition (IA.485/2022) filed under Order 39 CPC on October 30, 2025. The petitioner sought to restrain the respondent from interfering with her alleged possession of the disputed property, but the court found the petitioner failed to produce documentary evidence while the respondent adduced registration copies, partition deeds, and approved plans establishing a serious dispute over property ownership that can only be resolved at trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts