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
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
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
IA Pending
IA Pending
For further Proceedings
For further Proceedings
IA Pending
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts