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.

IA Pending Next hearing 02-Apr-2026 this date has passed

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNSA170000502022

Filing Number

76/2022

Filing Date

11-Mar-2022

Registration No

34/2022

Registration Date

11-Mar-2022

Court

District Munisf Court, Mettur

Judge

2-District Munsif, Mettur

Last updated 18-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section u/o6R14

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Pappathi and 1

    Adv. N.Saravanan

  2. 2.Perumal

    Adv. SARAVANAN N

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Govindan and 1 Advocate - Suresh R

  2. 2.Selvaraj

    Adv. KATHIRAVAN. P.

Case History

  1. 02-Apr-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 06-Mar-2026

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Mettur

  3. 28-Jan-2026

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Mettur

  4. 11-Dec-2025

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Mettur

  5. 20-Nov-2025

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Mettur

  6. 09-Oct-2025

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Mettur

  7. 17-Sep-2025

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Mettur

  8. 20-Aug-2025

    Amendment

    District Munsif, Mettur

  9. 30-Jul-2025

    Amendment

    District Munsif, Mettur

  10. 22-Jul-2025

    Amendment

    District Munsif, Mettur

  11. 19-Jun-2025

    Amendment

    District Munsif, Mettur

  12. 09-Apr-2025

    Amendment

    District Munsif, Mettur

  13. 03-Apr-2025

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Mettur

  14. 10-Feb-2025

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Mettur

  15. 10-Dec-2024

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Mettur

  16. 09-Oct-2024

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Mettur

  17. 12-Jul-2024

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Mettur

  18. 20-Jun-2024

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Mettur

  19. 15-Apr-2024

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Mettur

  20. 27-Mar-2024

    Steps

    District Munsif, Mettur

  21. 02-Jan-2024

    Trial

    District Munsif, Mettur

  22. 04-Nov-2023

    Trial

    District Munsif, Mettur

  23. 13-Sep-2023

    Trial

    District Munsif, Mettur

  24. 01-Aug-2023

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    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.

  25. 01-Aug-2023

    Trial

    District Munsif, Mettur

  26. 11-Jul-2023

    Trial

    District Munsif, Mettur

  27. 15-Jun-2023

    Trial

    District Munsif, Mettur

  28. 31-Mar-2023

    Issues

    District Munsif, Mettur

  29. 24-Jan-2023

    Appearance

    District Munsif, Mettur

  30. 21-Dec-2022

    Written Statement

    District Munsif, Mettur

  31. 18-Oct-2022

    Written Statement

    District Munsif, Mettur

  32. 23-Aug-2022

    Written Statement

    District Munsif, Mettur

  33. 14-Jul-2022

    Written Statement

    District Munsif, Mettur

  34. 07-Jun-2022

    Written Statement

    District Munsif, Mettur

  35. 08-Apr-2022

    Written Statement

    District Munsif, Mettur

  36. 11-Mar-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  37. 11-Mar-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 34/2022

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.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case