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
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
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
Written Statement
Written Statement
Written Statement
Written Statement
For further Proceedings
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts