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

Trial

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

CodeofCivilProcedure Section U/Or7R1to6

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

30-04-2026

Trial

09-04-2026

Trial

17-03-2026

Trial

10-03-2026

Trial

12-02-2026

Trial

Interim Orders

03-03-2025
Copy of Judgment

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

District Munisf Court, Mettur All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case