M. Backiyam and 4 others vs A. Gopirajan and 9 others — 58/2024

Case under --- Section 25(d),27(c). Disposed: Uncontested--Returned on 10th March 2026.

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNSV150065172024

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

99/2024

Filing Date

20-12-2024

Registration No

58/2024

Registration Date

20-12-2024

Court

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruppuvanam

Judge

1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate , Tiruppuvanam

Decision Date

10th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--Returned

Acts & Sections

--- Section 25(d),27(c)

Petitioner(s)

M. Backiyam and 4 others

M. Pandi

Dhanalakshmi

Kumar

Sridevi

Respondent(s)

A. Gopirajan and 9 others

Selvarajan

Amulrajan

Dhanapalan

Ayyanar

Karuppaiya

Balu

Arumugam

Ayyanar

Muniyasamy

Hearing History

Judge: 1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate , Tiruppuvanam

10-03-2026

Disposed

06-03-2026

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

02-03-2026

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

26-02-2026

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

18-02-2026

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

Interim Orders

18-02-2026
IA order
18-02-2026
IA order

Court Decision Summary The District Court at Tiruppur allowed an application (IA No.4/2025) filed by plaintiffs seeking amendment of their original plaint in a property possession case (OS No.58/2024) dated February 18, 2026. The court found that the amended plaint was necessary to clarify the relief sought, correct the court fee calculation, and properly articulate claims regarding alleged unlawful occupation of property by defendants 5-7, while rejecting the defendants' arguments that the application was procedurally defective or made in bad faith. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The District Court at Tiruppur allowed an application (IA No.4/2025) filed by plaintiffs seeking amendment of their original plaint in a property possession case (OS No.58/2024) dated February 18, 2026. The court found that the amended plaint was necessary to clarify the relief sought, correct the court fee calculation, and properly articulate claims regarding alleged unlawful occupation of property by defendants 5-7, while rejecting the defendants' arguments that the application was procedurally defective or made in bad faith. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruppuvanam All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case