Govindan vs Kaveri — 51/2025

Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section U/o.7R1-6. Status: Written Statement. Next hearing: 03rd June 2026.

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNSA160001352025

Written Statement

Next Hearing

03rd June 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

128/2025

Filing Date

03-03-2025

Registration No

51/2025

Registration Date

03-03-2025

Court

Sub Court, Mettur

Judge

1-Sub Judge, Mettur

Acts & Sections

CodeofCivilProcedure Section U/o.7R1-6

Petitioner(s)

Govindan

Adv. PETER RAJ.S

Respondent(s)

Kaveri

Madhesh

T.A.Murugan

Periyasamy

Chinnapaiyan

Arjunan

Muthusamy

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Sub Judge, Mettur

07-04-2026

Written Statement

25-03-2026

Written Statement

17-03-2026

Written Statement

10-03-2026

Written Statement

04-03-2026

For further Proceedings

Interim Orders

06-03-2025
Copy of Judicial/Revenue proceedings.

Petition Allowed – Temporary Injunction Granted The Subordinate Court, Mettur granted an ad-interim temporary injunction in favor of petitioner Govindan restraining the seven respondents from conducting the temple festival on 07.03.2025 while omitting the petitioner from performing his role as Periya Poosari (chief priest). The court found that the petitioner had valid rights under a registered 2012 pooja-performing agreement deed and that denying him participation would cause irreparable loss, with the balance of convenience favoring the petitioner. Both parties were ordered to bear their own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Petition Allowed – Temporary Injunction Granted The Subordinate Court, Mettur granted an ad-interim temporary injunction in favor of petitioner Govindan restraining the seven respondents from conducting the temple festival on 07.03.2025 while omitting the petitioner from performing his role as Periya Poosari (chief priest). The court found that the petitioner had valid rights under a registered 2012 pooja-performing agreement deed and that denying him participation would cause irreparable loss, with the balance of convenience favoring the petitioner. Both parties were ordered to bear their own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Sub Court, Mettur All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case