Raji vs Thayammal and 7 others Advocate - Eswaramoorthy S — 123/2023
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section U/Or7R1to6. Status: Trial. Next hearing: 22nd June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNSA170001532023
Next Hearing
22nd June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
210/2023
Filing Date
21-06-2023
Registration No
123/2023
Registration Date
21-06-2023
Court
District Munisf Court, Mettur
Judge
2-District Munsif, Mettur
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Raji
Adv. VELMURUGAN. C.
Respondent(s)
Thayammal and 7 others Advocate - Eswaramoorthy S
Nallammal
Adv. Eswaramoorthy S
Chinnaponnu
Thangavel
Palanisamy
Adv. Prakash A
Vijiya
Adv. Prakash A
Palanisamy
Adv. Prakash A
S.Rathi
Adv. MUTHAMILSELVAN.G
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District Munsif, Mettur
Trial
Trial
Trial
Trial
Trial
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 30-04-2026 | Trial | |
| 09-04-2026 | Trial | |
| 17-03-2026 | Trial | |
| 10-03-2026 | Trial | |
| 12-02-2026 | Trial |
Interim Orders
Summary The petition filed under the CPC Order 39 Rules 1, 2 and Section 151 seeking a permanent injunction against the respondents regarding disputed agricultural land (0.22 cents in survey no. 311/4A4) in Madura district is dismissed without costs. The court found that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case, prove irreparable loss, or present sufficient documentary evidence to support the claims. Additionally, the court determined that the matter involves complex property disputes and shared ownership issues that cannot be adequately determined through a temporary injunction application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The petition filed under the CPC Order 39 Rules 1, 2 and Section 151 seeking a permanent injunction against the respondents regarding disputed agricultural land (0.22 cents in survey no. 311/4A4) in Madura district is dismissed without costs. The court found that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case, prove irreparable loss, or present sufficient documentary evidence to support the claims. Additionally, the court determined that the matter involves complex property disputes and shared ownership issues that cannot be adequately determined through a temporary injunction application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts