A.Loodhu Alangarameri vs S.Anthony — 200025/2017
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section 25(a),25(d). Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 02nd June 2026.
OS - Original Suit (Title)
CNR: TNSV060000292017
Next Hearing
02nd June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
200025/2017
Filing Date
05-04-2017
Registration No
200025/2017
Registration Date
05-04-2017
Court
District Munsif Court, Devakkottai
Judge
2-District Munsif
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
A.Loodhu Alangarameri
Adv. Tmt.S.Jhansirani
Maria Stella @ Stella
Bromiyo
Rajesh
P.Arockiameri
Respondent(s)
S.Anthony
Jesuraja
Selvkumar
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District Munsif
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 24-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 16-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 07-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 30-03-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending | |
| 23-03-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
Interim Orders
Summary: The District Munsif Court at Devakottai allowed the petition filed by Anthony (1st defendant) under Order VIII Rule 1(3A) CPC to produce two additional documents relating to a partition between parties. The court held that the documents, being memoranda evidencing an earlier partition rather than partition deeds themselves, did not require registration and could be admitted. The documents are received subject to proof of relevancy and admissibility at trial, with no order as to costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The District Munsif Court at Devakottai allowed the petition filed by Anthony (1st defendant) under Order VIII Rule 1(3A) CPC to produce two additional documents relating to a partition between parties. The court held that the documents, being memoranda evidencing an earlier partition rather than partition deeds themselves, did not require registration and could be admitted. The documents are received subject to proof of relevancy and admissibility at trial, with no order as to costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts