R. Pooranam Ammal and 4 others vs Lazer alias Lakshmanan — 200038/2018
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 27c. Status: IA Pending. Next hearing: 08th April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTL210001722018
Next Hearing
08th April 2026
Filing Number
48/2018
Filing Date
27-02-2018
Registration No
200038/2018
Registration Date
27-02-2018
Court
District Munsif Court, Nanguneri
Judge
2-District Munsif
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
R. Pooranam Ammal and 4 others
Adv. Mr. V. Sivasankarar
R Kathiravan
R Kannan
Esakkimuthu
Kanagamani
Respondent(s)
Lazer alias Lakshmanan
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District Munsif
IA Pending
IA Pending
IA Pending
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | IA Pending |
| 12-03-2026 | IA Pending |
| 06-03-2026 | IA Pending |
| 26-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 17-02-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Court Order Summary Appeal No. 2/2025 | Original Case No. 38/2018 District Munsif Court, Nangur (Tamil Nadu) Date: December 2, 2025 Outcome: Appeal ALLOWED The court allowed the appeal and ordered the examination of the Village Administrative Officer regarding revenue documents related to the disputed property. The petitioners (Purnath Ammal and others) claimed the property was in their father's name and subsequently in their possession, but the respondent (Lakshman) interfered with their enjoyment. The court found the petitioners' reasons for seeking the officer's examination justified and granted the petition to expedite the 7-year-pending case, dismissing the respondent's objections about prior proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Order Summary Appeal No. 2/2025 | Original Case No. 38/2018 District Munsif Court, Nangur (Tamil Nadu) Date: December 2, 2025 Outcome: Appeal ALLOWED The court allowed the appeal and ordered the examination of the Village Administrative Officer regarding revenue documents related to the disputed property. The petitioners (Purnath Ammal and others) claimed the property was in their father's name and subsequently in their possession, but the respondent (Lakshman) interfered with their enjoyment. The court found the petitioners' reasons for seeking the officer's examination justified and granted the petition to expedite the 7-year-pending case, dismissing the respondent's objections about prior proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts