Madhu @ Madhammal and 2 others vs Rangammal and 4 others Advocate - V. Ranadev — 189/2022

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O7R1to6. Status: Additional Issues. Next hearing: 24th June 2026.

Additional Issues Next hearing 24-Jun-2026 this date has passed

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNSA170002722022

Filing Number

363/2022

Filing Date

25-Nov-2022

Registration No

189/2022

Registration Date

25-Nov-2022

Court

District Munisf Court, Mettur

Judge

2-District Munsif, Mettur

Last updated 08-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section O7R1to6

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Madhu @ Madhammal and 2 others

    Adv. Sathiyapriya

  2. 2.Rajagopal

  3. 3.Seenivasan

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Rangammal and 4 others Advocate - V. Ranadev

  2. 2.Krishanan

    Adv. V. Ranadev

  3. 3.Perumal

  4. 4.Thangavel

  5. 5.Selvam

Case History

  1. 24-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 29-Apr-2026

    Additional Issues

    District Munsif, Mettur

  3. 02-Apr-2026

    Additional Issues

    District Munsif, Mettur

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    Additional Issues

    District Munsif, Mettur

  5. 23-Feb-2026

    Additional Issues

    District Munsif, Mettur

  6. 20-Jan-2026

    Additional Written Statement

    District Munsif, Mettur

  7. 04-Dec-2025

    Amendment

    District Munsif, Mettur

  8. 06-Nov-2025

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Summary: The District Munsif Court at Mettur allowed the plaintiffs' petition to amend their plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. The plaintiffs sought to add a prayer for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove an alleged encroachment of 276 sqft on their property and restore vacant possession, discovered through an advocate commissioner's report filed in 2023. The court rejected the defendants' objections regarding limitation and contradictions in the commissioner's report, holding these matters should be decided in the main suit proceedings, and allowed the amendment in the interest of justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  9. 06-Nov-2025

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Mettur

  10. 05-Nov-2025

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Mettur

  11. 23-Oct-2025

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Mettur

  12. 16-Sep-2025

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Mettur

  13. 09-Aug-2025

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Mettur

  14. 06-Aug-2025

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Mettur

  15. 02-Jul-2025

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Mettur

  16. 12-Jun-2025

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Mettur

  17. 16-Apr-2025

    Trial

    District Munsif, Mettur

  18. 10-Mar-2025

    Trial

    District Munsif, Mettur

  19. 03-Feb-2025

    Trial

    District Munsif, Mettur

  20. 25-Nov-2024

    Trial

    District Munsif, Mettur

  21. 27-Aug-2024

    Trial

    District Munsif, Mettur

  22. 27-Jun-2024

    Trial

    District Munsif, Mettur

  23. 02-Apr-2024

    Trial

    District Munsif, Mettur

  24. 10-Jan-2024

    Trial

    District Munsif, Mettur

  25. 18-Oct-2023

    Trial

    District Munsif, Mettur

  26. 12-Sep-2023

    Trial

    District Munsif, Mettur

  27. 17-Aug-2023

    Trial

    District Munsif, Mettur

  28. 25-Jul-2023

    Trial

    District Munsif, Mettur

  29. 14-Jun-2023

    Trial

    District Munsif, Mettur

  30. 30-Mar-2023

    Trial

    District Munsif, Mettur

  31. 20-Feb-2023

    Trial

    District Munsif, Mettur

  32. 19-Jan-2023

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

  33. 19-Jan-2023

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

  34. 19-Jan-2023

    Issues

    District Munsif, Mettur

  35. 03-Jan-2023

    Appearance

    District Munsif, Mettur

  36. 25-Nov-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  37. 25-Nov-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 189/2022

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The District Munsif Court at Mettur allowed the plaintiffs' petition to amend their plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. The plaintiffs sought to add a prayer for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove an alleged encroachment of 276 sqft on their property and restore vacant possession, discovered through an advocate commissioner's report filed in 2023. The court rejected the defendants' objections regarding limitation and contradictions in the commissioner's report, holding these matters should be decided in the main suit proceedings, and allowed the amendment in the interest of justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case