Chandru vs The District Collector Advocate - Govt. Pleader — 73/2023

Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section O7,R1to6. Status: IA Pending. Next hearing: 07th July 2026.

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNSA170000892023

IA Pending

Next Hearing

07th July 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

128/2023

Filing Date

17-04-2023

Registration No

73/2023

Registration Date

17-04-2023

Court

District Munisf Court, Mettur

Judge

2-District Munsif, Mettur

Acts & Sections

CodeofCivilProcedure Section O7,R1to6

Petitioner(s)

Chandru

Adv. P.Sddhan

Respondent(s)

The District Collector Advocate - Govt. Pleader

The Revenue Divisional Officer

Adv. Govt. Pleader

The Tahsildar

Adv. Govt. Pleader

The Revenue Inspector

Adv. Govt. Pleader

The Village Administrative officer

Adv. Govt. Pleader

The President

Adv. Govt. Pleader

The Block Development officer

Adv. Govt. Pleader

Angamuthu

Kannupaiyan

Kasi

Hearing History

Judge: 2-District Munsif, Mettur

29-04-2026

IA Pending

10-03-2026

IA Pending

25-02-2026

For further Proceedings

20-02-2026

For further Proceedings

12-01-2026

IA Pending

Interim Orders

28-02-2024
Copy of Judgment

Summary: The Madurai District Civil Court (dated 28 February 2024) dismissed the petitioner's petition seeking permanent injunction against respondents 1-7 from constructing a road on agricultural land (Sy. No. 177/1A) allegedly owned by the petitioner. The court held that the petitioner failed to prove lawful ownership and that the respondents' counter-allegations regarding prior road construction lacked substantiation, finding the matter required full trial rather than grant of interim relief at the preliminary stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Madurai District Civil Court (dated 28 February 2024) dismissed the petitioner's petition seeking permanent injunction against respondents 1-7 from constructing a road on agricultural land (Sy. No. 177/1A) allegedly owned by the petitioner. The court held that the petitioner failed to prove lawful ownership and that the respondents' counter-allegations regarding prior road construction lacked substantiation, finding the matter required full trial rather than grant of interim relief at the preliminary stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

District Munisf Court, Mettur All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case