R.Duraisami vs Sivagami Advocate - S. Viswanathan B.Sc., B.L., — 58/2023
Case under Court Fees Act, 1870 Section U/sec 27 c. Disposed: Uncontested--Dismissed on 11th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTJ150000642023
Filing Number
79/2023
Filing Date
15-03-2023
Registration No
58/2023
Registration Date
15-03-2023
Court
District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru
Judge
1-District Munsif
Decision Date
11th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Dismissed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
R.Duraisami
Adv. S.S. Chandramouli M.A. B.L.
Respondent(s)
Sivagami Advocate - S. Viswanathan B.Sc., B.L.,
Chandirakasan
Ragunath
Malarkodi
Adv. S. Viswanathan B.Sc., B.L.,
Balachandiran
Adv. S. Viswanathan B.Sc., B.L.,
Chandirakala
Adv. S. Viswanathan B.Sc., B.L.,
Umamaheswari
Adv. S. Viswanathan B.Sc., B.L.,
Sathasivam
Adv. S. Viswanathan B.Sc., B.L.,
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif
Disposed
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 |
|---|---|
| 11-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 03-03-2026 | Amendment |
| 19-01-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 12-12-2025 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 12-11-2025 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
Final Orders / Judgements
The District Civil Court of Tiruvarur dismissed the case on March 11, 2026, under Section 18 of the CPC due to the plaintiff's non-appearance and lack of representation despite being given an opportunity to amend. The court granted the plaintiff a permanent injunction protecting his peaceful possession and ownership of Scheduled properties A and B against interference by the eight defendants, and dismissed the interim application (IA No.162/2023). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The District Civil Court of Tiruvarur dismissed the case on March 11, 2026, under Section 18 of the CPC due to the plaintiff's non-appearance and lack of representation despite being given an opportunity to amend. The court granted the plaintiff a permanent injunction protecting his peaceful possession and ownership of Scheduled properties A and B against interference by the eight defendants, and dismissed the interim application (IA No.162/2023). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts