Shanmugam and 2 others vs Murugesan — 200048/2016
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 25(a),27(c). Status: Steps. Next hearing: 01st June 2026.
OS - Original Suit (Title)
CNR: TNSV060000522016
Next Hearing
01st June 2026
Filing Number
200052/2016
Filing Date
20-04-2016
Registration No
200048/2016
Registration Date
20-04-2016
Court
District Munsif Court, Devakkottai
Judge
2-District Munsif
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shanmugam and 2 others
Adv. Thiru. N.Ramji
Respondent(s)
Murugesan
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District Munsif
Steps
Steps
Steps
Steps
Steps
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 28-04-2026 | Steps |
| 22-04-2026 | Steps |
| 15-04-2026 | Steps |
| 01-04-2026 | Steps |
| 25-03-2026 | Steps |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: OS.No.48/2016 Outcome: Petition ALLOWED with costs of Rs. 1,000. K.R. Murugesan (1st defendant) sought to submit additional documents late in trial, including registered gift and sale deeds showing property transfers. While the court acknowledged the petitioner failed to provide proper reasons for the delay and omitted these documents from his written statement, it upheld the principle of natural justice ("audi alteram partem"), allowing him a fair opportunity to present evidence. The court imposed Rs. 1,000 cost as penalty for the delay, noting the suit had been pending 10 years since 2016. Documents were admitted subject to proof of relevancy and admissibility at trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: OS.No.48/2016 Outcome: Petition ALLOWED with costs of Rs. 1,000. K.R. Murugesan (1st defendant) sought to submit additional documents late in trial, including registered gift and sale deeds showing property transfers. While the court acknowledged the petitioner failed to provide proper reasons for the delay and omitted these documents from his written statement, it upheld the principle of natural justice ("audi alteram partem"), allowing him a fair opportunity to present evidence. The court imposed Rs. 1,000 cost as penalty for the delay, noting the suit had been pending 10 years since 2016. Documents were admitted subject to proof of relevancy and admissibility at trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts