Kaliappan.P vs Siddhuraju.P Advocate - Adv.A.Kalyana venkatesan — 400055/2018
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section Or21ru11cpc. Status: EA Pending. Next hearing: 02nd June 2026.
EP - Execution Petition
CNR: TNSA190006922018
Next Hearing
02nd June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
400055/2018
Filing Date
04-07-2011
Registration No
400055/2018
Registration Date
22-07-2011
Court
SubCourt, Omalur
Judge
4-Sub Judge, Omalur
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Kaliappan.P
Adv. Palanisamy. K.
Respondent(s)
Siddhuraju.P Advocate - Adv.A.Kalyana venkatesan
Hearing History
Judge: 4-Sub Judge, Omalur
EA Pending
EA Pending
EA Pending
EA Pending
EA Pending
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-04-2026 | EA Pending | |
| 07-04-2026 | EA Pending | |
| 27-03-2026 | EA Pending | |
| 16-03-2026 | EA Pending | |
| 10-03-2026 | EA Pending |
Interim Orders
Court Order Summary Case: REA.4/2025 in E.P.55/2018 in O.S.39/2008 | Date: 24.02.2026 | Court: Omalur (Tamil Nadu) Outcome: The petition for execution of decree is dismissed. The court rejected the petitioner's request to auction 7.5 acres of land (Survey No. 102/1E) and only 17% of Survey No. 102/1D, holding that the petitioner cannot seek auction of only disputed portions while ignoring the court's judgment regarding the shared property. The order notes that cross-examination testimony established the petitioner's conflicting claims about land ownership, making the petition inadmissible. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Order Summary Case: REA.4/2025 in E.P.55/2018 in O.S.39/2008 | Date: 24.02.2026 | Court: Omalur (Tamil Nadu) Outcome: The petition for execution of decree is dismissed. The court rejected the petitioner's request to auction 7.5 acres of land (Survey No. 102/1E) and only 17% of Survey No. 102/1D, holding that the petitioner cannot seek auction of only disputed portions while ignoring the court's judgment regarding the shared property. The order notes that cross-examination testimony established the petitioner's conflicting claims about land ownership, making the petition inadmissible. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts