Ezhumalai vs Lakshimi Ammal — 200299/1989
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section 25(b), 27(c). Disposed: Uncontested--Transfer Cases to Other Court on 12th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTM070000021989
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
200299/1989
Filing Date
27-04-1989
Registration No
200299/1989
Registration Date
27-04-1989
Court
District Munsif Court, Arani
Judge
2-District Munsif,Arani
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Transfer Cases to Other Court
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ezhumalai
Respondent(s)
Lakshimi Ammal
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District Munsif,Arani
Disposed
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 |
|---|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending | |
| 26-02-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending | |
| 23-02-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending | |
| 12-02-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
Interim Orders
The District Munsif Court, Arni allowed the petition to implead K. Manonmani as the 5th defendant in the suit, holding that she is a necessary party as the legal representative of the deceased 3rd respondent Chandrakesan (who purchased the disputed property and subsequently died). The court reasoned that her impleading was essential for complete adjudication of the property dispute and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, without awarding costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The District Munsif Court, Arni allowed the petition to implead K. Manonmani as the 5th defendant in the suit, holding that she is a necessary party as the legal representative of the deceased 3rd respondent Chandrakesan (who purchased the disputed property and subsequently died). The court reasoned that her impleading was essential for complete adjudication of the property dispute and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, without awarding costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts