Thiruppathi and 2 others vs Murugesan — 38/2022
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section 27(C). Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 04th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNSV150045602022
Next Hearing
04th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
59/2022
Filing Date
28-09-2022
Registration No
38/2022
Registration Date
28-09-2022
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruppuvanam
Judge
1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate , Tiruppuvanam
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Thiruppathi and 2 others
Adv. S.Subbarayan
Boominathan
Dhanapakiyam
Respondent(s)
Murugesan
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate , Tiruppuvanam
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 21-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 09-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 02-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 26-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 18-03-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
This is a court order from the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Tirupuvanam dated July 15, 2025, in OS.No. 38/2022. The case involves a property dispute regarding right of way to a cement road. The court recorded the cross-examination testimony of the plaintiff's third witness (Kaliswaran) regarding the location and boundaries of the defendant's property and the access path to the cement road. The witness confirmed that the defendant has only one path to access the cement road, which passes through the plaintiff's land, and that the plaintiffs filed suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using this path. The court found the witness testimony credible and noted that the plaintiffs do not have the right to grant permanent injunction relief for the right of way. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
This is a court order from the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Tirupuvanam dated July 15, 2025, in OS.No. 38/2022. The case involves a property dispute regarding right of way to a cement road. The court recorded the cross-examination testimony of the plaintiff's third witness (Kaliswaran) regarding the location and boundaries of the defendant's property and the access path to the cement road. The witness confirmed that the defendant has only one path to access the cement road, which passes through the plaintiff's land, and that the plaintiffs filed suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using this path. The court found the witness testimony credible and noted that the plaintiffs do not have the right to grant permanent injunction relief for the right of way. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts