Tharmalingam another vs Palanisamy 2 others Advocate - BALAMURUGAN B — 9/2021
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O21R11. Status: EA Pending. Next hearing: 12th March 2026.
EP - Execution Petition
CNR: TNSA170001222021
Next Hearing
12th March 2026
Filing Number
152/2021
Filing Date
22-07-2021
Registration No
9/2021
Registration Date
30-07-2021
Court
District Munisf Court, Mettur
Judge
2-District Munsif, Mettur
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Tharmalingam another
Adv. MOHANRAM.S
Respondent(s)
Palanisamy 2 others Advocate - BALAMURUGAN B
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District Munsif, Mettur
EA Pending
EA Pending
EA Pending
EA Pending
EA Pending
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 05-03-2026 | EA Pending |
| 23-02-2026 | EA Pending |
| 07-02-2026 | EA Pending |
| 03-02-2026 | EA Pending |
| 27-01-2026 | EA Pending |
Interim Orders
SUMMARY: The petitions (E.A. Nos. 05 and 06 of 2024) filed by decree holders Dharmalingam and Umasaravanan to implead the legal heirs of the deceased 2nd respondent and appoint a guardian for minor respondents have been dismissed with liberty to file an appropriate application. The court found defects in the petitions, particularly that the affidavit supporting the guardian appointment failed to include mandatory statutory averments required under Order 32 Rule 3(5) of CPC (Madras High Court Amendment), 1908, regarding the proposed guardian's fitness and absence of adverse interest. The court permitted the petitioners to re-file a properly drafted application with complete averments to protect the minors' interests in the pending execution proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
SUMMARY: The petitions (E.A. Nos. 05 and 06 of 2024) filed by decree holders Dharmalingam and Umasaravanan to implead the legal heirs of the deceased 2nd respondent and appoint a guardian for minor respondents have been dismissed with liberty to file an appropriate application. The court found defects in the petitions, particularly that the affidavit supporting the guardian appointment failed to include mandatory statutory averments required under Order 32 Rule 3(5) of CPC (Madras High Court Amendment), 1908, regarding the proposed guardian's fitness and absence of adverse interest. The court permitted the petitioners to re-file a properly drafted application with complete averments to protect the minors' interests in the pending execution proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts