Marathal and 2 others vs Karunakaran and 2 others — 100195/2007
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 37(2). Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 13th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit (Title)
CNR: TNTI100000412007
Next Hearing
13th March 2026
Filing Number
100195/2007
Filing Date
20-06-2007
Registration No
100195/2007
Registration Date
20-06-2007
Court
District Munsif Court, Palladam
Judge
1-District Munsif
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Marathal and 2 others
Adv. Ponnusamy M
Respondent(s)
Karunakaran and 2 others
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif
Arguments
Arguments
Evidence
Evidence
Additional Written Statement
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 07-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 05-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 03-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 24-02-2026 | Additional Written Statement |
Interim Orders
Summary: The District Munsif Court, Palladam dismissed both interim applications (IA No. 14/2025 and IA No. 15/2025) filed by defendants 5-7 seeking to recall the plaintiff's witness (P.W.1) for further cross-examination and to reopen plaintiff's evidence. The court found that the defendants had already conducted elaborate cross-examination in December 2023, subsequently adduced their own witnesses (D.W.1 to D.W.3), and only raised the omitted questions while preparing arguments—nearly 2 years later—making their plea unconvincing and an apparent attempt to delay the 18-year-old partition suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The District Munsif Court, Palladam dismissed both interim applications (IA No. 14/2025 and IA No. 15/2025) filed by defendants 5-7 seeking to recall the plaintiff's witness (P.W.1) for further cross-examination and to reopen plaintiff's evidence. The court found that the defendants had already conducted elaborate cross-examination in December 2023, subsequently adduced their own witnesses (D.W.1 to D.W.3), and only raised the omitted questions while preparing arguments—nearly 2 years later—making their plea unconvincing and an apparent attempt to delay the 18-year-old partition suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts