B. Saranraj vs M. Kalpana Advocate - Tr.M.Mahendiran — 112/2023
Case under Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 42(a). Status: IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending. Next hearing: 25th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTM040003732023
Next Hearing
25th March 2026
Filing Number
367/2023
Filing Date
13-04-2023
Registration No
112/2023
Registration Date
18-04-2023
Court
Sub Court, Cheyyar
Judge
2-Additional Sub JudgeCheyyar
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
B. Saranraj
Adv. Thiru. U. Harikrishnan
Respondent(s)
M. Kalpana Advocate - Tr.M.Mahendiran
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Additional Sub JudgeCheyyar
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
Part Heard
Part Heard
Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 05-03-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 25-02-2026 | Part Heard |
| 23-02-2026 | Part Heard |
| 17-02-2026 | Part Heard |
Interim Orders
This is a Tamil language civil case (O.S. No. 112/2023) dated 28-10-2025 involving a property sale dispute. The court completed the examination and cross-examination of the plaintiff's witness (PW:1 Saranraj). The defendant's cross-examination challenged the plaintiff's claims regarding lottery ticket payments, property sale agreement terms, and amounts allegedly paid, with the defendant's husband denying most of the plaintiff's assertions. The court recorded the witness testimony and rejected the defendant's counter-arguments, ultimately ruling in favor of the plaintiff's claims regarding the disputed property sale transaction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
This is a Tamil language civil case (O.S. No. 112/2023) dated 28-10-2025 involving a property sale dispute. The court completed the examination and cross-examination of the plaintiff's witness (PW:1 Saranraj). The defendant's cross-examination challenged the plaintiff's claims regarding lottery ticket payments, property sale agreement terms, and amounts allegedly paid, with the defendant's husband denying most of the plaintiff's assertions. The court recorded the witness testimony and rejected the defendant's counter-arguments, ultimately ruling in favor of the plaintiff's claims regarding the disputed property sale transaction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts