Alamelu vs Balaji — 40/2022
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 27(c). Status: Issues. Next hearing: 20th April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTM060000502022
Filing Number
50/2022
Filing Date
14-Mar-2022
Registration No
40/2022
Registration Date
14-Mar-2022
Court
District Munsif Court, Polur
Judge
1-District Munsif
Last updated 11-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Alamelu
Adv. Tr.Y.P.Ganesan, B.A.,B.L.,
Respondent(s)
-
1.Balaji
-
2.Ramesh
Case History
-
20-Apr-2026
Next hearingPending
-
06-Mar-2026
Issues
District Munsif
-
05-Mar-2026
Issues
District Munsif
-
05-Feb-2026
Issues
District Munsif
-
05-Jan-2026
Discharge OrderView PDF
Summary: The petition for temporary injunction is allowed. The District Munsif Court granted ad interim injunction restraining the respondents (Balaji and Ramesh), their men, and agents from damaging or demolishing the cement plastered country roof and wall of the petitioner's (Alamelu's) property until the suit is decided on merits. The court found a prima facie case established by the petitioner and determined that the balance of convenience favored granting the injunction, as the respondents' proposed construction would cause irreparable loss to the petitioner's house. No costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
05-Jan-2026
Issues
District Munsif
-
02-Jan-2026
IA Pending
District Munsif
-
19-Dec-2025
IA Pending
District Munsif
-
16-Dec-2025
IA Pending
District Munsif
-
25-Nov-2025
IA Pending
District Munsif
-
13-Nov-2025
IA Pending
District Munsif
-
12-Nov-2025
IA Pending
District Munsif
-
29-Oct-2025
IA Pending
District Munsif
-
28-Oct-2025
IA Pending
District Munsif
-
19-Sep-2025
IA Pending
District Munsif
-
22-Aug-2025
IA Pending
District Munsif
-
06-Aug-2025
Issues
District Munsif
-
21-Jul-2025
Issues
District Munsif
-
04-Jul-2025
Issues
District Munsif
-
12-Jun-2025
Issues
District Munsif
-
20-Mar-2025
Issues
District Munsif
-
06-Jan-2025
Issues
District Munsif
-
18-Nov-2024
Issues
District Munsif
-
19-Oct-2024
Issues
District Munsif
-
18-Oct-2024
Issues
District Munsif
-
15-Oct-2024
Issues
District Munsif
-
26-Sep-2024
Issues
District Munsif
-
19-Sep-2024
Issues
District Munsif
-
30-Aug-2024
Issues
District Munsif
-
23-Aug-2024
Issues
District Munsif
-
20-Aug-2024
Issues
District Munsif
-
13-Aug-2024
Issues
District Munsif
-
16-Jul-2024
Issues
District Munsif
-
11-Jul-2024
Issues
District Munsif
-
24-Jun-2024
Issues
District Munsif
-
25-Apr-2024
Issues
District Munsif
-
14-Mar-2024
Issues
District Munsif
-
20-Feb-2024
Issues
District Munsif
-
31-Jan-2024
Issues
District Munsif
-
24-Jan-2024
Issues
District Munsif
-
12-Jan-2024
Issues
District Munsif
-
11-Jan-2024
Issues
District Munsif
-
13-Dec-2023
Issues
District Munsif
-
20-Nov-2023
Issues
District Munsif
-
17-Oct-2023
Issues
District Munsif
-
26-Sep-2023
Issues
District Munsif
-
04-Sep-2023
Issues
District Munsif
-
16-Aug-2023
Issues
District Munsif
-
20-Jul-2023
Issues
District Munsif
-
10-Jul-2023
Issues
District Munsif
-
27-Jun-2023
Issues
District Munsif
-
23-Jun-2023
Issues
District Munsif
-
03-Jun-2023
Written Statement
District Munsif
-
24-Mar-2023
Written Statement
District Munsif
-
17-Mar-2023
Written Statement
District Munsif
-
10-Mar-2023
Written Statement
District Munsif
-
03-Mar-2023
Written Statement
District Munsif
-
15-Feb-2023
Written Statement
District Munsif
-
05-Jan-2023
Written Statement
District Munsif
-
17-Oct-2022
Written Statement
District Munsif
-
29-Jul-2022
Written Statement
District Munsif
-
29-Jun-2022
Written Statement
District Munsif
-
18-Apr-2022
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
14-Mar-2022
Case filed
Registration No. 40/2022
Summary: The petition for temporary injunction is allowed. The District Munsif Court granted ad interim injunction restraining the respondents (Balaji and Ramesh), their men, and agents from damaging or demolishing the cement plastered country roof and wall of the petitioner's (Alamelu's) property until the suit is decided on merits. The court found a prima facie case established by the petitioner and determined that the balance of convenience favored granting the injunction, as the respondents' proposed construction would cause irreparable loss to the petitioner's house. No costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts