Subramani vs K.P.Annachi — 91/2022
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section Or.7R1to6. Status: IA Pending. Next hearing: 12th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNSA080001232022
Next Hearing
12th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
210/2022
Filing Date
27-09-2022
Registration No
91/2022
Registration Date
29-09-2022
Court
District Munsif Court, Sankari
Judge
2-District Munsif, Sankari
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Subramani
Adv. GANESAN.S
Vaiyapuri
Pappathi
Udayasankar
Selvakumar
Manimegalai
Selladurai
Senthil
Respondent(s)
K.P.Annachi
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District Munsif, Sankari
IA Pending
IA Pending
IA Pending
IA Pending
IA Pending
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 16-04-2026 | IA Pending | |
| 15-04-2026 | IA Pending | |
| 01-04-2026 | IA Pending | |
| 26-03-2026 | IA Pending | |
| 25-03-2026 | IA Pending |
Interim Orders
Summary: The District Munsif Court of Sankari dismissed the Interlocutory Application filed by 12 plaintiffs seeking an ad-interim injunction to restrain the defendant from alienating or encumbering ancestral property. The court held that the dispute involves complex factual questions—including whether a 2014 document was a fraudulent sale deed or legitimate loan security, whether fraud occurred, and whether the suit is time-barred—that cannot be decided at the interim stage without full trial and evidence. The court determined that granting the injunction would prejudge the merits and directed the parties to resolve these issues during trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The District Munsif Court of Sankari dismissed the Interlocutory Application filed by 12 plaintiffs seeking an ad-interim injunction to restrain the defendant from alienating or encumbering ancestral property. The court held that the dispute involves complex factual questions—including whether a 2014 document was a fraudulent sale deed or legitimate loan security, whether fraud occurred, and whether the suit is time-barred—that cannot be decided at the interim stage without full trial and evidence. The court determined that granting the injunction would prejudge the merits and directed the parties to resolve these issues during 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