Muniyappan vs Periyasamy — 625/2023
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section 25(d),27(c),40(1). Status: Judgement. Next hearing: 23rd April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTI180033632023
Next Hearing
23rd April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1683/2023
Filing Date
08-08-2023
Registration No
625/2023
Registration Date
08-08-2023
Court
Principal District Court, Tiruppur
Judge
1-Principal District Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Muniyappan
Adv. Suresh
Eswari
Respondent(s)
Periyasamy
Savitha
The Sub Registrar ,Kunnathur sub registration office ,Uthukuli ,Tiruppur
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District Judge
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 26-03-2026 | Judgement | |
| 23-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 09-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 04-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 24-02-2026 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
Summary: This is a court order from the Principal District and Sessions Court, Tiruppur in O.S. No. 625/2023 dated 27.01.2026. The document records the cross-examination of a witness (P.W.2/Palanisamy) in a civil suit, wherein the witness testified about a power of attorney document dated 24.11.2011 and disputed certain claims made by the plaintiff regarding the execution and authenticity of the document. The court has dismissed the petition, finding that the witness's testimony is not credible and that the document in question was indeed prepared as claimed by the defendant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: This is a court order from the Principal District and Sessions Court, Tiruppur in O.S. No. 625/2023 dated 27.01.2026. The document records the cross-examination of a witness (P.W.2/Palanisamy) in a civil suit, wherein the witness testified about a power of attorney document dated 24.11.2011 and disputed certain claims made by the plaintiff regarding the execution and authenticity of the document. The court has dismissed the petition, finding that the witness's testimony is not credible and that the document in question was indeed prepared as claimed by the defendant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts