Ravichandran vs Santhosh Manikandan — 80/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 25(b). Status: Issues. Next hearing: 11th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTM230001492025
Filing Number
167/2025
Filing Date
17-Jun-2025
Registration No
80/2025
Registration Date
18-Jun-2025
Court
Sub Court, Vandavasi
Judge
3-Sub Judge,Vandavasi
Last updated 09-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Ravichandran
Adv. V.G.SENTHILKUMAR
Respondent(s)
-
1.Santhosh Manikandan
-
2.Sooriyagandhi
-
3.The Thasildhar, Vandavasi
-
4.The District Collector, Tiruvannamalai
Case History
-
11-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
22-Apr-2026
Issues
Sub Judge,Vandavasi
-
10-Mar-2026
Issues
Sub Judge,Vandavasi
-
17-Feb-2026
Issues
Sub Judge,Vandavasi
-
28-Jan-2026
Written Statement
Sub Judge,Vandavasi
-
16-Dec-2025
Written Statement
Sub Judge,Vandavasi
-
13-Nov-2025
Written Statement
Sub Judge,Vandavasi
-
16-Oct-2025
Written Statement
Sub Judge,Vandavasi
-
19-Sep-2025
Copy of I.AView PDF
Summary The petition filed under CPC Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 seeking an interim injunction (Status Quo) restraining the respondents from obstructing the petitioner's peaceful enjoyment of the property is dismissed. The court found that the petitioner failed to disclose complete and truthful facts regarding the property's survey number and subdivision details, and therefore lacks clean hands to seek discretionary relief such as an interim injunction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
19-Sep-2025
Orders
Sub Judge,Vandavasi
-
09-Sep-2025
Orders
Sub Judge,Vandavasi
-
28-Aug-2025
IA Pending
Sub Judge,Vandavasi
-
18-Aug-2025
IA Pending
Sub Judge,Vandavasi
-
04-Aug-2025
IA Pending
Sub Judge,Vandavasi
-
28-Jul-2025
IA Pending
Sub Judge,Vandavasi
-
23-Jul-2025
IA Pending
Sub Judge,Vandavasi
-
18-Jun-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
17-Jun-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 80/2025
Summary The petition filed under CPC Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 seeking an interim injunction (Status Quo) restraining the respondents from obstructing the petitioner's peaceful enjoyment of the property is dismissed. The court found that the petitioner failed to disclose complete and truthful facts regarding the property's survey number and subdivision details, and therefore lacks clean hands to seek discretionary relief such as an interim injunction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts