Arumugam Naidu vs State Government — 200036/2018
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 27(c). Status: IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending. Next hearing: 05th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNSV060000422018
Next Hearing
05th June 2026
Filing Number
200036/2018
Filing Date
17-04-2018
Registration No
200036/2018
Registration Date
17-04-2018
Court
District Munsif Court, Devakkottai
Judge
2-District Munsif
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Arumugam Naidu
Adv. Mr.T.Sivananthan
Sakthi @ Balasubramanian
Respondent(s)
State Government
The Tahsildar
Mayalagu
Sundarambal
Boominathan
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District Munsif
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 22-04-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 16-04-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 09-04-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 30-03-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 24-03-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
Interim Orders
Summary: The District Munsif, Devakottai dismissed the petition filed by defendants Mayazhagu, Sundarambal, and Boominathan seeking an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to restrain the plaintiff (Sakthi @ Balasubramani) from interfering with their possession of disputed property. The court found that the petitioners failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable hardship required for interim injunction relief, determining these issues could be addressed in the main suit. No costs were ordered. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The District Munsif, Devakottai dismissed the petition filed by defendants Mayazhagu, Sundarambal, and Boominathan seeking an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to restrain the plaintiff (Sakthi @ Balasubramani) from interfering with their possession of disputed property. The court found that the petitioners failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable hardship required for interim injunction relief, determining these issues could be addressed in the main suit. No costs were ordered. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts