Seetharaman vs Thiru. B. Prakash — 57/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 25(b). Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 24th March 2026.

Evidence Next hearing 24-Mar-2026 this date has passed

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNTM080000982024

Filing Number

97/2024

Filing Date

27-Jun-2024

Registration No

57/2024

Registration Date

12-Jul-2024

Court

Principal District Munsif Court, Cheyyar

Judge

3-Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar

Last updated 11-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 25(b)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Seetharaman

    Adv. Thiru. S. Arumugam

  2. 2.N. Neelakandan

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Thiru. B. Prakash

  2. 2.H. Prasannakumar

  3. 3.Sagarlal Balabai company Lt., Mumbai

  4. 4.Rajendiran

  5. 5.Kandasamy

  6. 6.N. Perumalsamy

Case History

  1. 24-Mar-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 05-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar

  3. 17-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar

  4. 06-Feb-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

    The petition filed under Section 3 of the IPC 1969 by the accused (38-year-old male) regarding a property dispute was dismissed. The court found that the accused's arguments regarding his share in the disputed property and the actions of the 5th and 6th defendants lacked merit, and therefore rejected the petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  5. 06-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar

  6. 05-Feb-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  7. 05-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar

  8. 28-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar

  9. 20-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar

  10. 20-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar

  11. 03-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar

  12. 18-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar

  13. 07-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar

  14. 31-Oct-2025

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  15. 31-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar

  16. 24-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar

  17. 15-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar

  18. 13-Oct-2025

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  19. 13-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar

  20. 20-Sep-2025

    Trial

    Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar

  21. 29-Aug-2025

    Trial

    Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar

  22. 14-Aug-2025

    Trial

    Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar

  23. 31-Jul-2025

    Trial

    Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar

  24. 10-Jul-2025

    Issues

    Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar

  25. 26-Jun-2025

    Appearance

    Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar

  26. 03-Jun-2025

    Batta

    Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar

  27. 02-Apr-2025

    Batta

    Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar

  28. 10-Mar-2025

    Batta

    Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar

  29. 24-Jan-2025

    Batta

    Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar

  30. 10-Jan-2025

    Batta

    Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar

  31. 10-Dec-2024

    Batta

    Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar

  32. 29-Oct-2024

    Batta

    Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar

  33. 23-Sep-2024

    Written Statement

    Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar

  34. 02-Sep-2024

    Written Statement

    Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar

  35. 19-Aug-2024

    Written Statement

    Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar

  36. 12-Aug-2024

    Written Statement

    Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar

  37. 12-Jul-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  38. 27-Jun-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 57/2024

casestatus.in Summary

The petition filed under Section 3 of the IPC 1969 by the accused (38-year-old male) regarding a property dispute was dismissed. The court found that the accused's arguments regarding his share in the disputed property and the actions of the 5th and 6th defendants lacked merit, and therefore rejected the petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case