Swaminathan vs District Collector, Tiruppur District Advocate - Selvakumar S — 303/2017
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section sec.25(d),27(c). Status: IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending. Next hearing: 13th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit (Title)
CNR: TNTI140003412017
Next Hearing
13th March 2026
Filing Number
303/2017
Filing Date
21-11-2017
Registration No
303/2017
Registration Date
05-12-2017
Court
District Munsif Court, Kangeyam
Judge
1-District Munsif
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Swaminathan
Adv. Ramesh K
Respondent(s)
District Collector, Tiruppur District Advocate - Selvakumar S
Thasildhar, Kangayam.
Adv. Selvakumar S
Varadharaj
Adv. Iswaramoorthy C
Kanakambaram
Adv. Sowmiya U
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 07-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 05-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 25-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 16-02-2026 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
Summary: In Original Case No. 303/2017 before the District Civil Court, Kangayam (dated February 4, 2026), the plaintiff's testimony was recorded under the Indian Evidence Act, 1969. The court examined the plaintiff's claims regarding school transfer certificates and family records, subjecting his statements to cross-examination on multiple discrepancies, including inconsistencies about parental information, the identity of persons named in documents, and the authenticity of certificates submitted. The court admitted the plaintiff's examined testimony into the record after verification by the judge. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: In Original Case No. 303/2017 before the District Civil Court, Kangayam (dated February 4, 2026), the plaintiff's testimony was recorded under the Indian Evidence Act, 1969. The court examined the plaintiff's claims regarding school transfer certificates and family records, subjecting his statements to cross-examination on multiple discrepancies, including inconsistencies about parental information, the identity of persons named in documents, and the authenticity of certificates submitted. The court admitted the plaintiff's examined testimony into the record after verification by the judge. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts