Thirumalai vs Archunan — 67/2022
Case under Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 37(2),25(d),27(c). Status: Amendment. Next hearing: 17th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNSV140001342022
Next Hearing
17th June 2026
Filing Number
67/2022
Filing Date
25-04-2022
Registration No
67/2022
Registration Date
25-04-2022
Court
Sub Court, Manamadurai
Judge
1-Sub Judge,Manamadurai
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Thirumalai
Adv. Mr.D.Ajaipriyan M.com,B.L
Respondent(s)
Archunan
Ananthavalli
Sasikumar
Venkat Retdi
Adv. Mr.Sureshbabu
Subregistrar Subregistrar office Manamadurai
Tamil Nadu Coverment through its District collector sivagangai
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Sub Judge,Manamadurai
Amendment
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
Trial
Trial
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 21-04-2026 | Amendment |
| 06-04-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 12-03-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 05-03-2026 | Trial |
| 24-02-2026 | Trial |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 67/2022 Outcome: The petition was allowed. The court granted permission for Thirumalai (petitioner/plaintiff) to continue civil case 67/2022 through a power of attorney holder (Anitha Moomu) representing the power of attorney agent, since Thirumalai's husband (the actual party) is necessarily residing abroad for livelihood purposes. Key Point: The court rejected the respondents' objection that a power of attorney holder cannot represent a party, citing Supreme Court precedent that allows power of attorney holders to appear and act on behalf of parties in civil proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 67/2022 Outcome: The petition was allowed. The court granted permission for Thirumalai (petitioner/plaintiff) to continue civil case 67/2022 through a power of attorney holder (Anitha Moomu) representing the power of attorney agent, since Thirumalai's husband (the actual party) is necessarily residing abroad for livelihood purposes. Key Point: The court rejected the respondents' objection that a power of attorney holder cannot represent a party, citing Supreme Court precedent that allows power of attorney holders to appear and act on behalf of parties in civil proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts