Siddhapillai (Died) and 4 others vs Manoranjitham Advocate - CHRISTOPHER. S — 200057/2013
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section OrderVIIR1to6ofCPC. Status: Additional Written Statement. Next hearing: 23rd March 2026.
OS - Original Suit (Title)
CNR: TNSA080000342013
Next Hearing
23rd March 2026
Filing Number
200057/2013
Filing Date
14-02-2013
Registration No
200057/2013
Registration Date
01-03-2013
Court
District Munsif Court, Sankari
Judge
2-District Munsif, Sankari
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Siddhapillai (Died) and 4 others
Adv. RAJAGOPALAN. N.
Chandra (P.
Karthikeyan (P.
Arasiyarku Arasi (P.
Tharaheswari (P.
Respondent(s)
Manoranjitham Advocate - CHRISTOPHER. S
Kanagasabapathi
Adv. CHRISTOPHER. S
Shanthi
Adv. Exparte
Arun (D.
Saranya @ Anbukarasi (D.
Sundaram -D.6
Adv. PP Admitted
Mohan (D.
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District Munsif, Sankari
Additional Written Statement
Additional Written Statement
Additional Written Statement
Additional Written Statement
Additional Written Statement
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Additional Written Statement |
| 23-02-2026 | Additional Written Statement |
| 10-02-2026 | Additional Written Statement |
| 30-01-2026 | Additional Written Statement |
| 06-01-2026 | Additional Written Statement |
Interim Orders
Summary: The petition filed by plaintiffs seeking permission to file a reply statement to the 8th defendant's written statement was allowed. The District Munsif Court granted the petitioners' request to file a detailed reply statement under Order VIII Rule 9 and Section 151 of the CPC, recognizing that plaintiffs must have the opportunity to counter defenses raised by the 8th defendant who entered the suit late following a High Court revision. The petition was allowed conditionally, requiring petitioners to pay Rs. 1,000 as costs to Respondents 1, 2, and 8 by September 22, 2023, failing which the petition would stand automatically dismissed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The petition filed by plaintiffs seeking permission to file a reply statement to the 8th defendant's written statement was allowed. The District Munsif Court granted the petitioners' request to file a detailed reply statement under Order VIII Rule 9 and Section 151 of the CPC, recognizing that plaintiffs must have the opportunity to counter defenses raised by the 8th defendant who entered the suit late following a High Court revision. The petition was allowed conditionally, requiring petitioners to pay Rs. 1,000 as costs to Respondents 1, 2, and 8 by September 22, 2023, failing which the petition would stand automatically dismissed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts