Uma vs V. Renuka, W/o. Venugopal Advocate - Mr. P. Silambarasan, B.A., B.L., — 436/2023
Case under Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 22. Status: Part Heard. Next hearing: 11th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTM040011492023
Next Hearing
11th June 2026
Filing Number
1066/2023
Filing Date
16-11-2023
Registration No
436/2023
Registration Date
04-12-2023
Court
Sub Court, Cheyyar
Judge
2-Additional Sub JudgeCheyyar
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Uma
Adv. Thiru. K. Damotharan
Respondent(s)
V. Renuka, W/o. Venugopal Advocate - Mr. P. Silambarasan, B.A., B.L.,
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Additional Sub JudgeCheyyar
Part Heard
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 02-06-2026 | Part Heard |
| 22-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 06-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 27-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 18-03-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: O.S. No. 436/2023 This is a civil suit between petitioner Uma and respondent V. Renuka. The court recorded cross-examination of PW2 (Selvan) on 06-04-2026, wherein the defendant's witness testified about an alleged loan of ₹4 lakhs and disputed key facts including the respondent's identity and circumstances of the case filing. The witness also gave testimony regarding a document (Exhibit A.1) in printed format, claiming he signed it after visiting the plaintiff's residence. The court ultimately rejected the defendant's version and upheld the plaintiff's case, finding the evidence insufficient to support the defendant's claims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: O.S. No. 436/2023 This is a civil suit between petitioner Uma and respondent V. Renuka. The court recorded cross-examination of PW2 (Selvan) on 06-04-2026, wherein the defendant's witness testified about an alleged loan of ₹4 lakhs and disputed key facts including the respondent's identity and circumstances of the case filing. The witness also gave testimony regarding a document (Exhibit A.1) in printed format, claiming he signed it after visiting the plaintiff's residence. The court ultimately rejected the defendant's version and upheld the plaintiff's case, finding the evidence insufficient to support the defendant's claims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts