Pappathi and 1 vs Govindan and 1 Advocate - Suresh R — 34/2022

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section u/o6R14. Status: IA Pending. Next hearing: 02nd April 2026.

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNSA170000502022

IA Pending

Next Hearing

02nd April 2026

Filing Number

76/2022

Filing Date

11-03-2022

Registration No

34/2022

Registration Date

11-03-2022

Court

District Munisf Court, Mettur

Judge

2-District Munsif, Mettur

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section u/o6R14

Petitioner(s)

Pappathi and 1

Adv. N.Saravanan

Perumal

Adv. SARAVANAN N

Respondent(s)

Govindan and 1 Advocate - Suresh R

Selvaraj

Adv. KATHIRAVAN. P.

Hearing History

Judge: 2-District Munsif, Mettur

06-03-2026

IA Pending

28-01-2026

IA Pending

11-12-2025

IA Pending

20-11-2025

IA Pending

09-10-2025

IA Pending

Interim Orders

01-08-2023
Copy of Judgment

Summary This is a District Court order from Mattur, Tamil Nadu (dated August 1, 2023) in a property partition dispute case. The court allowed the petition for temporary/interim injunction filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants regarding a jointly-owned property (scheduled in "B" list). The court found that the defendants were wrongfully preventing the plaintiffs from receiving their rightful share of the disputed property and ruled that an interim injunction should be granted without requiring a full trial, relying on Supreme Court precedent that mini-trials should not be conducted at the interim relief stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary This is a District Court order from Mattur, Tamil Nadu (dated August 1, 2023) in a property partition dispute case. The court allowed the petition for temporary/interim injunction filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants regarding a jointly-owned property (scheduled in "B" list). The court found that the defendants were wrongfully preventing the plaintiffs from receiving their rightful share of the disputed property and ruled that an interim injunction should be granted without requiring a full trial, relying on Supreme Court precedent that mini-trials should not be conducted at the interim relief stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

District Munisf Court, Mettur All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case