Gracy Jasmin Flora vs E.S. Marry Deva Sitham and 2 Others — 279/2019
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section 25(b),25(d),27(c),. Status: IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending. Next hearing: 04th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTM030006142019
Next Hearing
04th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
723/2019
Filing Date
05-09-2019
Registration No
279/2019
Registration Date
13-09-2019
Court
Sub Court, Arani
Judge
1-Subordinate Judge,Arni
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Gracy Jasmin Flora
Adv. S. Anbarasan B.A., B.L.,
Respondent(s)
E.S. Marry Deva Sitham and 2 Others
Settu Navab John
The Sub Registrar, Arni.
Moithen Hussan
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Subordinate Judge,Arni
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
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 27-04-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending | |
| 17-04-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending | |
| 06-04-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending | |
| 23-03-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending | |
| 10-03-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Case No. 279/2019, dated 01.03.2023 The court found inconsistencies in the petitioner's testimony regarding criminal charges. The petitioner claimed lack of knowledge about who authorized the five alleged offenses mentioned in the case, and stated the spouse did not appear before the court. The court rejected the petitioner's claims as insufficient and ruled against granting relief based on the unreliable and evasive statements provided. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Case No. 279/2019, dated 01.03.2023 The court found inconsistencies in the petitioner's testimony regarding criminal charges. The petitioner claimed lack of knowledge about who authorized the five alleged offenses mentioned in the case, and stated the spouse did not appear before the court. The court rejected the petitioner's claims as insufficient and ruled against granting relief based on the unreliable and evasive statements provided. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts