Krishnamoorthy vs Mani — 509/2018
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section or7r1to6. Status: Appearance. Next hearing: 03rd June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNSA190020312018
Next Hearing
03rd June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
509/2018
Filing Date
26-11-2007
Registration No
509/2018
Registration Date
26-11-2007
Court
SubCourt, Omalur
Judge
4-Sub Judge, Omalur
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Krishnamoorthy
Selavaraj (died)
Balasubramaniam
Krishnamoorthy
Manoharan
Chandrasekaran
Respondent(s)
Mani
SenthilKumaran
Dr.Chandra sekaran
Navaneethajayakrishnan
Mohanraj
Lakshmi
Babu
Hearing History
Judge: 4-Sub Judge, Omalur
Appearance
Part Heard
Part Heard
Part Heard
Part Heard
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 29-04-2026 | Appearance | |
| 22-04-2026 | Part Heard | |
| 10-04-2026 | Part Heard | |
| 07-04-2026 | Part Heard | |
| 27-03-2026 | Part Heard |
Interim Orders
In this Original Suit (OS) 509/2018 dated 07.04.2026, the court completed the cross-examination of the plaintiff Chandrasekaran regarding property ownership disputes, including questions about land purchases, property boundaries, and documentation. The court found the plaintiff's testimony regarding certain property claims to be false and rejected his assertions about public roads and land ownership, ruling that the plaintiff failed to provide adequate evidence to support his claims for the relief sought. No further cross-examination was ordered, and the case proceeded accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
In this Original Suit (OS) 509/2018 dated 07.04.2026, the court completed the cross-examination of the plaintiff Chandrasekaran regarding property ownership disputes, including questions about land purchases, property boundaries, and documentation. The court found the plaintiff's testimony regarding certain property claims to be false and rejected his assertions about public roads and land ownership, ruling that the plaintiff failed to provide adequate evidence to support his claims for the relief sought. No further cross-examination was ordered, and the case proceeded accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts