Antony Michael @ Antony vs Lurdhu Nadhan Advocate - Thiru.M. Gregory Retna Raj — 83/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Or7R1. Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 11th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTL080008652023
Next Hearing
11th June 2026
Filing Number
99/2023
Filing Date
18-07-2023
Registration No
83/2023
Registration Date
18-07-2023
Court
Principal District Munsif Court, Vallioor
Judge
2-Principal District Munsif
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Antony Michael @ Antony
Adv. Thiru.S. Subash
Respondent(s)
Lurdhu Nadhan Advocate - Thiru.M. Gregory Retna Raj
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Principal District Munsif
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Evidence
Lok Adalat
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-06-2026 | Arguments |
| 27-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 06-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 14-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 06-03-2026 | Lok Adalat |
Interim Orders
Case 83/2023 Summary Court: Primary District Civil Court, Valliyur Date: 20.02.2026 Petitioner: Antony Michael Respondent: Lurdhu Nadhan Advocate & M. Gregory Retna Raj This civil dispute concerns a 1 acre 27 cent agricultural property in Tandayaar village leased for poultry farming since 2017. The witness (respondent) testified that he received monthly rent of Rs. 7,500 deposited in his bank account until the petition was filed; rent payments were made regularly even during the pandemic. He denied the petitioner's claims of arrears and stated the property remains vacant pending court proceedings. The court's examination confirmed the lease arrangement and rent payment history through documentary evidence, with the respondent's testimony corroborating the lease terms and continuous rent remittance until the litigation commenced. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case 83/2023 Summary Court: Primary District Civil Court, Valliyur Date: 20.02.2026 Petitioner: Antony Michael Respondent: Lurdhu Nadhan Advocate & M. Gregory Retna Raj This civil dispute concerns a 1 acre 27 cent agricultural property in Tandayaar village leased for poultry farming since 2017. The witness (respondent) testified that he received monthly rent of Rs. 7,500 deposited in his bank account until the petition was filed; rent payments were made regularly even during the pandemic. He denied the petitioner's claims of arrears and stated the property remains vacant pending court proceedings. The court's examination confirmed the lease arrangement and rent payment history through documentary evidence, with the respondent's testimony corroborating the lease terms and continuous rent remittance until the litigation commenced. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts