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

Case disposed

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

COURT FEES ACT, 1870 Section 25(b),27(c),27(d)

Petitioner(s)

Hariharasudhan

Adv. MOHANASUNDRAM.M MMS OFFICE

Respondent(s)

Thennarasu

Tamilnadu Electricity Board,by Maravamangalam Assistant Engineer

Hearing History

Judge: 3-SUBORDINATE JUDGE

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

06-04-2026
IA order

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Sub Court, Sivagangai All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case