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

Arguments

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

COURT FEES ACT, 1870 Section 42(a)

Petitioner(s)

Pavalakodi

Adv. CHOCKALINGAM.N

Respondent(s)

Arockiasamy Advocate - Mr.M.Arivazhagan

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SIVAGANGAI

27-04-2026

Arguments

10-04-2026

Arguments

26-03-2026

Arguments

10-03-2026

Arguments

19-02-2026

Arguments

Interim Orders

31-10-2025
Copy of deposition

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

District and Sessions Court, Sivagangai All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case