R. Balakrishnan vs M. Murugan — 60/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 27(c),27(c). Status: IA Pending. Next hearing: 13th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTM080001062024
Filing Number
105/2024
Filing Date
18-Jul-2024
Registration No
60/2024
Registration Date
24-Jul-2024
Court
Principal District Munsif Court, Cheyyar
Judge
3-Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
Last updated 11-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.R. Balakrishnan
Adv. Selvi.G. Selvi
Respondent(s)
-
1.M. Murugan
-
2.The Tahsildar
-
3.The District Collector
Case History
-
13-Mar-2026
Next hearingPending
-
05-Mar-2026
IA Pending
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
20-Feb-2026
IA Pending
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
17-Feb-2026
IA Pending
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
30-Jan-2026
IA Pending
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
12-Jan-2026
IA Pending
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
09-Jan-2026
IA Pending
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
16-Dec-2025
IA Pending
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
06-Dec-2025
IA Pending
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
26-Nov-2025
Copy of I.A OrderView PDF
-
26-Nov-2025
Copy of I.A OrderView PDF
SUMMARY: The petition filed by Rahman to be impleaded as the 4th defendant in Original Suit No. 60/2024 has been allowed. The Principal District Munsif, Cheyyar, found Rahman to be a necessary party to the suit as he has purchased lands below the house site layout and claims to have been using the disputed pathway for access to his properties. The court determined that Rahman's presence is essential for complete and effective adjudication of the controversy, and any order in the suit would affect his rights. No order as to costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
26-Nov-2025
IA Pending
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
17-Nov-2025
IA Pending
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
10-Nov-2025
IA Pending
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
06-Nov-2025
IA Pending
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
03-Nov-2025
IA Pending
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
30-Oct-2025
IA Pending
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
06-Oct-2025
IA Pending
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
12-Sep-2025
IA Pending
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
04-Sep-2025
IA Pending
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
02-Sep-2025
IA Pending
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
26-Aug-2025
IA Pending
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
13-Aug-2025
IA Pending
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
05-Aug-2025
IA Pending
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
21-Jul-2025
Written Statement
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
18-Jul-2025
Written Statement
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
18-Jun-2025
Written Statement
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
13-Jun-2025
Written Statement
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
24-Apr-2025
Written Statement
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
16-Apr-2025
Written Statement
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
07-Apr-2025
Written Statement
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
11-Mar-2025
Written Statement
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
21-Feb-2025
Written Statement
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
13-Feb-2025
Written Statement
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
23-Jan-2025
Written Statement
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
18-Dec-2024
Written Statement
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
14-Dec-2024
Written Statement
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
29-Nov-2024
Written Statement
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
13-Nov-2024
Written Statement
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
29-Oct-2024
Written Statement
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
18-Sep-2024
Written Statement
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
17-Sep-2024
Written Statement
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
27-Aug-2024
Written Statement
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
24-Jul-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
18-Jul-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 60/2024
SUMMARY: The petition filed by Rahman to be impleaded as the 4th defendant in Original Suit No. 60/2024 has been allowed. The Principal District Munsif, Cheyyar, found Rahman to be a necessary party to the suit as he has purchased lands below the house site layout and claims to have been using the disputed pathway for access to his properties. The court determined that Rahman's presence is essential for complete and effective adjudication of the controversy, and any order in the suit would affect his rights. No order as to costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts