P.Rajenderan vs P.Goundappan and one other Advocate - SADHASIVAM. I. K. — 138/2022
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section U/S VIIR1to6. Status: Trial. Next hearing: 12th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNSA170002062022
Next Hearing
12th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
276/2022
Filing Date
27-08-2022
Registration No
138/2022
Registration Date
27-08-2022
Court
District Munisf Court, Mettur
Judge
2-District Munsif, Mettur
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
P.Rajenderan
Adv. VAITHILINGAM. V
Respondent(s)
P.Goundappan and one other Advocate - SADHASIVAM. I. K.
G. Umasiva Nagarajan
Adv. SADHASIVAM. I. K.
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District Munsif, Mettur
Trial
Trial
Trial
IA Pending
IA Pending
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 17-04-2026 | Trial | |
| 10-03-2026 | Trial | |
| 04-02-2026 | Trial | |
| 30-01-2026 | IA Pending | |
| 29-01-2026 | IA Pending |
Interim Orders
Summary The District Munsif Court at Mettur dismissed the plaintiff's petition seeking to amend the plaint schedule under CPC Order 6 Rule 17. The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide valid reasons for the amendment nearly 4 years after filing the suit, and the original plaint contained no averments regarding the 0.05-cent pathway he sought to include, making the proposed amendment impermissible. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The District Munsif Court at Mettur dismissed the plaintiff's petition seeking to amend the plaint schedule under CPC Order 6 Rule 17. The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide valid reasons for the amendment nearly 4 years after filing the suit, and the original plaint contained no averments regarding the 0.05-cent pathway he sought to include, making the proposed amendment impermissible. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts