Pavalakodi vs Arockiasamy Advocate - Mr.M.Arivazhagan — 83/2023
Case under Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 42(a). Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 11th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNSV010035632023
Next Hearing
11th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
438/2023
Filing Date
06-07-2023
Registration No
83/2023
Registration Date
07-07-2023
Court
District and Sessions Court, Sivagangai
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SIVAGANGAI
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Pavalakodi
Adv. CHOCKALINGAM.N
Respondent(s)
Arockiasamy Advocate - Mr.M.Arivazhagan
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SIVAGANGAI
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 27-04-2026 | Arguments | |
| 10-04-2026 | Arguments | |
| 26-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 10-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 19-02-2026 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
Summary This is an Original Suit (OS.No -83/2023) from the Madurai District Court dated 31.10.2025. The court heard arguments from both parties regarding a property dispute and monetary claims involving an agreement (marked as "A.1"). The defendant contended that a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- was already received and provided medical evidence, while the plaintiff disputed full payment and sought enforcement of the agreement terms. The court found merit in the plaintiff's contentions regarding the property valuation and the agreement's enforceability, ordering the defendant to comply with the agreement's 6-month timeline and rejecting the defendant's claims of full settlement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary This is an Original Suit (OS.No -83/2023) from the Madurai District Court dated 31.10.2025. The court heard arguments from both parties regarding a property dispute and monetary claims involving an agreement (marked as "A.1"). The defendant contended that a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- was already received and provided medical evidence, while the plaintiff disputed full payment and sought enforcement of the agreement terms. The court found merit in the plaintiff's contentions regarding the property valuation and the agreement's enforceability, ordering the defendant to comply with the agreement's 6-month timeline and rejecting the defendant's claims of full settlement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts