Hariharasudhan vs Thennarasu — 121/2025
Case under Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 25(b),27(c),27(d). Disposed: Uncontested--Rejected on 06th April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNSV030003162025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
347/2025
Filing Date
21-05-2025
Registration No
121/2025
Registration Date
06-06-2025
Court
Sub Court, Sivagangai
Judge
3-SUBORDINATE JUDGE
Decision Date
06th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Rejected
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Hariharasudhan
Adv. MOHANASUNDRAM.M MMS OFFICE
Respondent(s)
Thennarasu
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,by Maravamangalam Assistant Engineer
Hearing History
Judge: 3-SUBORDINATE JUDGE
Disposed
IA Pending
IA Pending
IA Pending
IA Pending
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 06-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | IA Pending | |
| 05-03-2026 | IA Pending | |
| 20-01-2026 | IA Pending | |
| 08-12-2025 | IA Pending |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Subordinate Court of Sivagangai rejected the original suit (O.S.No.121/2025) filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC, finding it barred by the statute of limitations. The court determined that the plaintiff's claim regarding disputed agricultural land (Plot "B") was time-barred, as the cause of action arose from a 2006 deed partition but the suit was filed only in 2025, making it hopelessly barred by the Limitation Act. The court also found that the plaintiff lacked standing to assert rights in the disputed property, as acknowledged in earlier legal documents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Subordinate Court of Sivagangai rejected the original suit (O.S.No.121/2025) filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC, finding it barred by the statute of limitations. The court determined that the plaintiff's claim regarding disputed agricultural land (Plot "B") was time-barred, as the cause of action arose from a 2006 deed partition but the suit was filed only in 2025, making it hopelessly barred by the Limitation Act. The court also found that the plaintiff lacked standing to assert rights in the disputed property, as acknowledged in earlier legal documents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts