B. SIVAKUMAR REP BY HIS POWER AGENT S. SUDHAKAR vs P. RAMESH — 130/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O7,R1,2. Status: Trial. Next hearing: 21st April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTM240001372024
Next Hearing
21st April 2026
Filing Number
69/2024
Filing Date
23-02-2023
Registration No
130/2024
Registration Date
23-02-2023
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kilpennathur
Judge
1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Kilpennathur
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
B. SIVAKUMAR REP BY HIS POWER AGENT S. SUDHAKAR
Adv. THIRU.R.MOHAN
Respondent(s)
P. RAMESH
Kamsala
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Kilpennathur
Trial
Trial
Issues
Issues
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 05-03-2026 | Trial |
| 10-02-2026 | Trial |
| 09-02-2026 | Issues |
| 27-01-2026 | Issues |
| 16-12-2025 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
Interim Orders
Summary: The petition for contempt of court filed by petitioner Sivakumar against respondents P. Ramesh and Ms. Kamsala under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC has been dismissed without cost. The court found that the petitioner failed to prove willful disobedience beyond reasonable doubt, noting that the petitioner admittedly lacks possession of the suit property and therefore cannot claim interference with his possession. The court observed that since a related suit (OS 123/2023) is pending before a higher court and the respondent has filed an appeal to set aside the interim injunction order, the parties should seek remedy through the main suit rather than through contempt proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The petition for contempt of court filed by petitioner Sivakumar against respondents P. Ramesh and Ms. Kamsala under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC has been dismissed without cost. The court found that the petitioner failed to prove willful disobedience beyond reasonable doubt, noting that the petitioner admittedly lacks possession of the suit property and therefore cannot claim interference with his possession. The court observed that since a related suit (OS 123/2023) is pending before a higher court and the respondent has filed an appeal to set aside the interim injunction order, the parties should seek remedy through the main suit rather than through contempt proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts