Abdul Reghuman vs Palaniappan Advocate - K.Rajakili — 300055/2014

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 42. Status: Issue of Service. Next hearing: 09th June 2026.

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNSV030000552014

Issue of Service

Next Hearing

09th June 2026

Filing Date

28-04-2014

Registration No

300055/2014

Registration Date

28-04-2014

Court

Sub Court, Sivagangai

Judge

3-SUBORDINATE JUDGE

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 42

Petitioner(s)

Abdul Reghuman

Adv. L.Saravanan

Respondent(s)

Palaniappan Advocate - K.Rajakili

Hearing History

Judge: 3-SUBORDINATE JUDGE

28-04-2026

Issue of Service

16-04-2026

Issue of Service

08-04-2026

IA Pending

01-04-2026

IA Pending

23-03-2026

IA Pending

Interim Orders

16-04-2026
IA order
16-04-2026
IA order
16-04-2026
IA order
16-04-2026
IA order

Case Summary: 300055/2014 Case: I.A.No.6/2026 in O.S.No.55/2014 Court: Subordinate Court, Sivagangai Date: 16.04.2026 Parties: R. Palaniappan (Petitioner/Defendant) v. Abdul Reghuman (Respondent/Plaintiff) Order: The court allowed the recall petition and ordered that witness PW3 (a government official) be recalled to allow the defendant to cross-examine him. The court found that the defendant was denied adequate opportunity for cross-examination when PW3 was initially examined, and that procedural fairness required recalling the witness. The case was adjourned for further arguments. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 300055/2014 Case: I.A.No.6/2026 in O.S.No.55/2014 Court: Subordinate Court, Sivagangai Date: 16.04.2026 Parties: R. Palaniappan (Petitioner/Defendant) v. Abdul Reghuman (Respondent/Plaintiff) Order: The court allowed the recall petition and ordered that witness PW3 (a government official) be recalled to allow the defendant to cross-examine him. The court found that the defendant was denied adequate opportunity for cross-examination when PW3 was initially examined, and that procedural fairness required recalling the witness. The case was adjourned for further arguments. 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

Sub Court, Sivagangai All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case