Boopalan and 3 Others vs Manickam and another — 54/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section OrderVIIRules1to6. Status: Amendment. Next hearing: 11th June 2026.

Amendment Next hearing 11-Jun-2026 this date has passed

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNSA130000992024

e-Filing Number

23-03-2024

Filing Number

123/2024

Filing Date

25-Mar-2024

Registration No

54/2024

Registration Date

25-Mar-2024

Court

District Munsif Court, Attur

Judge

3-Additional District Munsif, Attur

Last updated 08-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section OrderVIIRules1to6
Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 27c

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Boopalan and 3 Others

    Adv. RAVI R

  2. 2.Vijayakumar

    Adv. R.RAVI RAVI

  3. 3.Minor Parthipan

    Adv. R.RAVI RAVI

  4. 4.Manikandan

    Adv. R.RAVI RAVI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Manickam and another

  2. 2.Thiyagarajan

Case History

  1. 11-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    Amendment

    Additional District Munsif, Attur

  3. 10-Mar-2026

    Amendment

    Additional District Munsif, Attur

  4. 10-Feb-2026

    Amendment

    Additional District Munsif, Attur

  5. 18-Dec-2025

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Summary: The Additional District Civil Court in Attur allowed the petition (I.M. 3/2025) filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners. The court ordered that respondents 3 to 6 (District Collector, Revenue Officer, Taluk Officer, and Village Administrative Officer) be added as necessary parties/defendants to the suit concerning a disputed agricultural property. The court found that proper adjudication of the land ownership dispute requires the involvement of these revenue officials, as they have issued relevant revenue documents and records related to the property in question. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  6. 18-Dec-2025

    Amendment

    Additional District Munsif, Attur

  7. 21-Nov-2025

    Appearance

    Additional District Munsif, Attur

  8. 07-Nov-2025

    Appearance

    Additional District Munsif, Attur

  9. 07-Oct-2025

    Appearance

    Additional District Munsif, Attur

  10. 02-Sep-2025

    Appearance

    Additional District Munsif, Attur

  11. 07-Jul-2025

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    Additional District Munsif, Attur

  12. 30-Apr-2025

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    Additional District Munsif, Attur

  13. 10-Mar-2025

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    Additional District Munsif, Attur

  14. 01-Feb-2025

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    Additional District Munsif, Attur

  15. 02-Jan-2025

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    Additional District Munsif, Attur

  16. 19-Oct-2024

    Written Statement

    Additional District Munsif, Attur

  17. 17-Sep-2024

    Written Statement

    Additional District Munsif, Attur

  18. 31-Jul-2024

    Written Statement

    Additional District Munsif, Attur

  19. 24-Jun-2024

    Written Statement

    Additional District Munsif, Attur

  20. 25-Apr-2024

    Written Statement

    Additional District Munsif, Attur

  21. 25-Mar-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  22. 25-Mar-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 54/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Additional District Civil Court in Attur allowed the petition (I.M. 3/2025) filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners. The court ordered that respondents 3 to 6 (District Collector, Revenue Officer, Taluk Officer, and Village Administrative Officer) be added as necessary parties/defendants to the suit concerning a disputed agricultural property. The court found that proper adjudication of the land ownership dispute requires the involvement of these revenue officials, as they have issued relevant revenue documents and records related to the property in question. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case