Gangadharan and 3 others vs Pandurangan and another one Advocate - Senthilkumar S — 55/2020

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 7R1to6. Status: Amendment. Next hearing: 01st June 2026.

Amendment Next hearing 01-Jun-2026 this date has passed

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNSA170000782020

Filing Number

111/2020

Filing Date

25-Jun-2020

Registration No

55/2020

Registration Date

30-Jun-2020

Court

District Munisf Court, Mettur

Judge

2-District Munsif, Mettur

Last updated 08-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 7R1to6

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Gangadharan and 3 others

    Adv. SENTHILKUMAR. M. P.

  2. 2.Arul kumar

    Adv. SENTHILKUMAR. M. P.

  3. 3.Manimegalai

    Adv. SENTHILKUMAR. M. P.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Pandurangan and another one Advocate - Senthilkumar S

  2. 2.Seerangan

    Adv. Given up

Case History

  1. 01-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 28-Apr-2026

    Amendment

    District Munsif, Mettur

  3. 02-Apr-2026

    Amendment

    District Munsif, Mettur

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    Amendment

    District Munsif, Mettur

  5. 11-Feb-2026

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Mettur

  6. 23-Jan-2026

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Mettur

  7. 18-Dec-2025

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Mettur

  8. 04-Dec-2025

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Mettur

  9. 17-Nov-2025

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Mettur

  10. 10-Nov-2025

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Mettur

  11. 28-Oct-2025

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Mettur

  12. 14-Oct-2025

    Amendment

    District Munsif, Mettur

  13. 15-Sep-2025

    Amendment

    District Munsif, Mettur

  14. 26-Aug-2025

    Amendment

    District Munsif, Mettur

  15. 07-Aug-2025

    Amendment

    District Munsif, Mettur

  16. 10-Jul-2025

    Amendment

    District Munsif, Mettur

  17. 18-Jun-2025

    Amendment

    District Munsif, Mettur

  18. 27-Mar-2025

    Amendment

    District Munsif, Mettur

  19. 30-Jan-2025

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

  20. 30-Jan-2025

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    SUMMARY: The petition filed by M. Yasodha, M. Somasundaram, and M. Ramachandran is allowed without costs. The court orders that the petitioners be impleaded as defendants 3-5 in the original suit (O.S. 55/2020) filed against defendants 1-2 (Kanakatharan and Arulanandaar). The court found that the petitioners have a legitimate interest in the disputed joint Hindu family property and are necessary parties to the partition suit, as they are heirs of the deceased Moorthy and have rights over the property in dispute. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  21. 30-Jan-2025

    Steps

    District Munsif, Mettur

  22. 16-Dec-2024

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Mettur

  23. 16-Nov-2024

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Mettur

  24. 15-Oct-2024

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Mettur

  25. 10-Sep-2024

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Mettur

  26. 08-Jul-2024

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Mettur

  27. 20-Jun-2024

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Mettur

  28. 15-Apr-2024

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Mettur

  29. 26-Feb-2024

    Part Heard

    District Munsif, Mettur

  30. 03-Jan-2024

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  31. 03-Jan-2024

    Part Heard

    District Munsif, Mettur

  32. 21-Nov-2023

    Part Heard

    District Munsif, Mettur

  33. 04-Oct-2023

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  34. 04-Oct-2023

    Part Heard

    District Munsif, Mettur

  35. 02-Sep-2023

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  36. 02-Sep-2023

    Part Heard

    District Munsif, Mettur

  37. 10-Aug-2023

    Trial

    District Munsif, Mettur

  38. 14-Jun-2023

    Trial

    District Munsif, Mettur

  39. 19-Apr-2023

    Issues

    District Munsif, Mettur

  40. 15-Mar-2023

    Issues

    District Munsif, Mettur

  41. 10-Jan-2023

    Issues

    District Munsif, Mettur

  42. 28-Oct-2022

    Issues

    District Munsif, Mettur

  43. 09-Sep-2022

    Issues

    District Munsif, Mettur

  44. 27-Jul-2022

    Issues

    District Munsif, Mettur

  45. 07-Jun-2022

    Issues

    District Munsif, Mettur

  46. 12-Mar-2022

    Lok Adalat

    District Munsif, Mettur

  47. 28-Feb-2022

    Lok Adalat

    District Munsif, Mettur

  48. 17-Dec-2021

    Issues

    District Munsif, Mettur

  49. 23-Oct-2021

    Appearance

    District Munsif, Mettur

  50. 06-Oct-2021

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    District Munsif, Mettur

  51. 21-Sep-2021

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    District Munsif, Mettur

  52. 04-Sep-2021

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    District Munsif, Mettur

  53. 27-Aug-2021

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    District Munsif, Mettur

  54. 29-Jun-2021

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    District Munsif, Mettur

  55. 05-Jun-2021

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    District Munsif, Mettur

  56. 15-Apr-2021

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    District Munsif, Mettur

  57. 01-Mar-2021

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    District Munsif, Mettur

  58. 23-Feb-2021

    Written Statement

    District Munsif, Mettur

  59. 12-Feb-2021

    Written Statement

    District Munsif, Mettur

  60. 21-Jan-2021

    Written Statement

    District Munsif, Mettur

  61. 22-Dec-2020

    Written Statement

    District Munsif, Mettur

  62. 26-Nov-2020

    Written Statement

    District Munsif, Mettur

  63. 29-Sep-2020

    Service Pending

    District Munsif, Mettur

  64. 29-Jul-2020

    Service Pending

    District Munsif, Mettur

  65. 30-Jun-2020

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  66. 25-Jun-2020

    Case filed

    Registration No. 55/2020

casestatus.in Summary

SUMMARY: The petition filed by M. Yasodha, M. Somasundaram, and M. Ramachandran is allowed without costs. The court orders that the petitioners be impleaded as defendants 3-5 in the original suit (O.S. 55/2020) filed against defendants 1-2 (Kanakatharan and Arulanandaar). The court found that the petitioners have a legitimate interest in the disputed joint Hindu family property and are necessary parties to the partition suit, as they are heirs of the deceased Moorthy and have rights over the property in dispute. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case