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
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
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
IA Pending
IA Pending
IA Pending
IA Pending
IA Pending
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts