Poogodi vs Samiyappan Advocate - Karunambigai B — 39/2022
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section Or7R1. Status: Amendment. Next hearing: 03rd June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTI070000492022
Next Hearing
03rd June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
73/2022
Filing Date
07-02-2022
Registration No
39/2022
Registration Date
10-02-2022
Court
District Munsif Court, Tiruppur
Judge
6-Principal District Munsif
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Poogodi
Adv. Revathi P
Respondent(s)
Samiyappan Advocate - Karunambigai B
Muthusamy
Adv. Karunanithi B
Sanmugam
Adv. Suresh G
Hearing History
Judge: 6-Principal District Munsif
Amendment
Amendment
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 | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 17-04-2026 | Amendment | |
| 08-04-2026 | Amendment | |
| 25-03-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending | |
| 12-03-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending | |
| 09-03-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
Interim Orders
SUMMARY: The petition filed by the defendant (Muthusamy) under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaintiff's plaint has been dismissed. The court found that the case involves triable issues and mixed questions of law and facts regarding property ownership and possession that cannot be decided at the pleading stage but require full adjudication at trial. The court noted the High Court's earlier direction allowing the plaintiffs to prove their case and directed the plaint to proceed to trial with revenue officials impleaded as necessary parties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
SUMMARY: The petition filed by the defendant (Muthusamy) under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaintiff's plaint has been dismissed. The court found that the case involves triable issues and mixed questions of law and facts regarding property ownership and possession that cannot be decided at the pleading stage but require full adjudication at trial. The court noted the High Court's earlier direction allowing the plaintiffs to prove their case and directed the plaint to proceed to trial with revenue officials impleaded as necessary parties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts