Mathaiyan and one anther vs Narayanan and two others Advocate - Exparte — 200160/2015
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U/Or.7Rule1and2ofC.P.C. Status: IA Pending. Next hearing: 25th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit (Title)
CNR: TNSA080001922015
Next Hearing
25th March 2026
Filing Number
200160/2015
Filing Date
10-07-2015
Registration No
200160/2015
Registration Date
10-07-2015
Court
District Munsif Court, Sankari
Judge
2-District Munsif, Sankari
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Mathaiyan and one anther
Adv. Kandasuwami.P.M
Sakthi
Adv. Kandhasuwami.P.M
Respondent(s)
Narayanan and two others Advocate - Exparte
Sellandi
Adv. Exparte
Palanisamy
Adv. Exparte
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District Munsif, Sankari
IA Pending
IA Pending
IA Pending
IA Pending
IA Pending
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | IA Pending |
| 05-03-2026 | IA Pending |
| 16-02-2026 | IA Pending |
| 28-01-2026 | IA Pending |
| 20-01-2026 | IA Pending |
Interim Orders
Summary: The petition (I.A.9/2025) filed under Section 151 of CPC to reopen I.A.6/2023 has been allowed. The District Munsif Court granted the petitioners permission to mark vital documents that were already produced during the enquiry but remained unmarked due to oversight, and to advance further oral submissions on the impleading petition. The court held that allowing marking of already-recorded documents would not prejudice the respondents and is necessary for just adjudication, prioritizing substantive justice over technicalities. No costs imposed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The petition (I.A.9/2025) filed under Section 151 of CPC to reopen I.A.6/2023 has been allowed. The District Munsif Court granted the petitioners permission to mark vital documents that were already produced during the enquiry but remained unmarked due to oversight, and to advance further oral submissions on the impleading petition. The court held that allowing marking of already-recorded documents would not prejudice the respondents and is necessary for just adjudication, prioritizing substantive justice over technicalities. No costs imposed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts