Perumalsamy S/o. Jagadeesa Mudaliar vs Gangavishnu S/o. Chokkalinga Nainar — 192/2025
Case under Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 22. Disposed: Uncontested--Decreed with cost on 01st April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTM040005292025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
542/2025
Filing Date
02-09-2025
Registration No
192/2025
Registration Date
16-09-2025
Court
Sub Court, Cheyyar
Judge
2-Additional Sub JudgeCheyyar
Decision Date
01st April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Decreed with cost
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Perumalsamy S/o. Jagadeesa Mudaliar
Adv. Mr. S. Anandhan, M.A., B.L.,
Respondent(s)
Gangavishnu S/o. Chokkalinga Nainar
Gubendiran S/o. Gangavishnu
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Additional Sub JudgeCheyyar
Disposed
Judgement
Judgement
Evidence
Ex-Parte Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 01-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 30-03-2026 | Judgement | |
| 23-03-2026 | Judgement | |
| 10-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 23-02-2026 | Ex-Parte Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Additional Subordinate Court in Tiruvannamalai ruled that the defendants must repay the plaintiff ₹3,82,480 plus interest of 12% per annum from the case filing date until judgment, and an additional 6% interest thereafter on the principal amount of ₹2,25,000. The court found that the defendants had borrowed ₹2,25,000 from the plaintiff on September 3, 2022, for family and wedding expenses, and provided three promissory notes as security, but failed to repay the debt despite repeated requests. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The Additional Subordinate Court in Tiruvannamalai ruled that the defendants must repay the plaintiff ₹3,82,480 plus interest of 12% per annum from the case filing date until judgment, and an additional 6% interest thereafter on the principal amount of ₹2,25,000. The court found that the defendants had borrowed ₹2,25,000 from the plaintiff on September 3, 2022, for family and wedding expenses, and provided three promissory notes as security, but failed to repay the debt despite repeated requests. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts