Anjalai. S vs Kidukkampattiyan @ Vadivel. P and 2 others Advocate - Exparte — 200085/2017
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section Or7rules1to6. Status: Written Statement. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit (Title)
CNR: TNSA170001012017
Next Hearing
15th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
200085/2017
Filing Date
24-04-2017
Registration No
200085/2017
Registration Date
24-04-2017
Court
District Munisf Court, Mettur
Judge
2-District Munsif, Mettur
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Anjalai. S
Adv. GOPINATH. P.
Respondent(s)
Kidukkampattiyan @ Vadivel. P and 2 others Advocate - Exparte
Murugan. K
Adv. Exparte
Banumathi. R
Adv. RAMACHANDRAN. G.
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District Munsif, Mettur
Written Statement
Written Statement
Written Statement
Written Statement
Written Statement
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 28-04-2026 | Written Statement | |
| 02-04-2026 | Written Statement | |
| 10-03-2026 | Written Statement | |
| 25-02-2026 | Written Statement | |
| 12-02-2026 | Written Statement |
Interim Orders
The District Munsiff's Court in Melur permitted amendments to the civil suit (I.M. No. 07/2024) by allowing the petitioner to add the Tamil Nadu Government through various revenue officials as parties, and to substitute the deceased first respondent with his legal heirs. The court allowed necessary amendments to the case records under CPC Rule 6 (17, 18) and Section 151, finding that the amendments would not prejudice the defendants and were essential for proper adjudication of the property dispute over the scheduled land in question. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The District Munsiff's Court in Melur permitted amendments to the civil suit (I.M. No. 07/2024) by allowing the petitioner to add the Tamil Nadu Government through various revenue officials as parties, and to substitute the deceased first respondent with his legal heirs. The court allowed necessary amendments to the case records under CPC Rule 6 (17, 18) and Section 151, finding that the amendments would not prejudice the defendants and were essential for proper adjudication of the property dispute over the scheduled land in question. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts