Jayaraman vs Pichandi (a) Pichaikkaran — 491/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U/s.33(1). Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 03rd June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTM230012932024
Next Hearing
03rd June 2026
Filing Number
789/2024
Filing Date
04-10-2024
Registration No
491/2024
Registration Date
04-10-2024
Court
Sub Court, Vandavasi
Judge
3-Sub Judge,Vandavasi
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Jayaraman
Adv. Tr. K. Elumalai, B.Sc., B.L.,
Respondent(s)
Pichandi (a) Pichaikkaran
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Sub Judge,Vandavasi
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 22-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 25-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 13-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 12-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 22-01-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: OS.No.491/2024 Outcome: Witness examination completed; case remains pending on substantive merits. Key Facts: Jayaraman (petitioner/witness) testified on February 12, 2026, regarding a loan dispute with Pichandi and his wife. Jayaraman claims he loaned ₹1 lakh to Pichandi's family (wife acted as borrower due to Pichandi's health issues), with property mortgaged as security. Disputes exist regarding actual loan amount (₹50,000 vs ₹1 lakh claimed), interest rate (2% vs 3% demanded), and whether loan payments were made. The court recorded Jayaraman's testimony, which he confirmed as accurate before signing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: OS.No.491/2024 Outcome: Witness examination completed; case remains pending on substantive merits. Key Facts: Jayaraman (petitioner/witness) testified on February 12, 2026, regarding a loan dispute with Pichandi and his wife. Jayaraman claims he loaned ₹1 lakh to Pichandi's family (wife acted as borrower due to Pichandi's health issues), with property mortgaged as security. Disputes exist regarding actual loan amount (₹50,000 vs ₹1 lakh claimed), interest rate (2% vs 3% demanded), and whether loan payments were made. The court recorded Jayaraman's testimony, which he confirmed as accurate before signing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts