Kuppammal vs Dasarathan — 200015/2011
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 27 (c). Status: Amendment. Next hearing: 03rd June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTM160002742011
Next Hearing
03rd June 2026
Filing Number
200015/2011
Filing Date
01-02-2011
Registration No
200015/2011
Registration Date
01-02-2011
Court
District Munsif Court, Vandavasi
Judge
2-District Munsif,Vandavasi
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Kuppammal
Adv. Tr.J. Nethaji
K.S.Nagarajan
K.S.Kamalakannan
K.S.Prabhakaran
Respondent(s)
Dasarathan
Ellappan
Amirthammal
Banumathi
Krishnasamy
Anjalam
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District Munsif,Vandavasi
Amendment
For further Proceedings
Amendment
Amendment
Amendment
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 28-04-2026 | Amendment |
| 24-04-2026 | For further Proceedings |
| 09-04-2026 | Amendment |
| 13-03-2026 | Amendment |
| 03-03-2026 | Amendment |
Interim Orders
CASE SUMMARY: 200015/2011 (Interim Application 538/2019) The District Civil Court, Vandavasi allowed the petitioners' application to revive the abated case by forgiving the delay in filing a succession petition after the death of the first respondent Dasarathan on 17.03.2018. The court ordered that the first respondent's legal heirs (his wife and three daughters) be added as defendants to the ongoing injunction suit, finding that the delay in informing the petitioners of the death was justified and that adding the heirs is necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and achieve complete resolution of the dispute. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
CASE SUMMARY: 200015/2011 (Interim Application 538/2019) The District Civil Court, Vandavasi allowed the petitioners' application to revive the abated case by forgiving the delay in filing a succession petition after the death of the first respondent Dasarathan on 17.03.2018. The court ordered that the first respondent's legal heirs (his wife and three daughters) be added as defendants to the ongoing injunction suit, finding that the delay in informing the petitioners of the death was justified and that adding the heirs is necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and achieve complete resolution of the dispute. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts