CHINNAPPAN vs MARIYAPRAKASAM AND 6 OTHER — 160/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Sec26,Or7,Ru1. Status: Written Statement. Next hearing: 16th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTM240001612024
Filing Number
81/2024
Filing Date
04-Dec-2023
Registration No
160/2024
Registration Date
04-Dec-2023
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kilpennathur
Judge
1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Kilpennathur
Last updated 09-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.CHINNAPPAN
Adv. THIRU. V. PRAKASH BABU
Respondent(s)
-
1.MARIYAPRAKASAM AND 6 OTHER
-
2.ANTHONIYAMMAL
-
3.AROKIYASAMY
-
4.ANTHONYMUTHU
-
5.AROKIYAJOHN
-
6.EDWIN PAULRAJ
-
7.MATHALAMARI
Case History
-
16-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
30-Apr-2026
Written Statement
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Kilpennathur
-
07-Apr-2026
Written Statement
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Kilpennathur
-
10-Mar-2026
Written Statement
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Kilpennathur
-
12-Feb-2026
Written Statement
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Kilpennathur
-
03-Feb-2026
Written Statement
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Kilpennathur
-
06-Jan-2026
Written Statement
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Kilpennathur
-
11-Dec-2025
Written Statement
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Kilpennathur
-
13-Nov-2025
Written Statement
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Kilpennathur
-
30-Oct-2025
Written Statement
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Kilpennathur
-
24-Oct-2025
Written Statement
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Kilpennathur
-
08-Oct-2025
I.A OrderView PDF
-
08-Oct-2025
I.A OrderView PDF
Summary: The petition filed by Anthoniyammal and Arokiyasamy under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC to set aside the ex-parte order dated 29.01.2024 was allowed. The court found that despite the 7-month delay in filing and unverified illness claims, allowing the petition serves the principle of fair trial in partition proceedings, as the defendants deserve an opportunity to contest the case. The petitioners were ordered to pay Rs. 1,000 as cost to the plaintiff's counsel by 23.10.2025. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
08-Oct-2025
IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Kilpennathur
-
07-Oct-2025
IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Kilpennathur
-
26-Sep-2025
IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Kilpennathur
-
25-Sep-2025
IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Kilpennathur
-
18-Sep-2025
IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Kilpennathur
-
09-Sep-2025
IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Kilpennathur
-
29-Aug-2025
IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Kilpennathur
-
28-Aug-2025
Issues
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Kilpennathur
-
14-Aug-2025
Issues
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Kilpennathur
-
24-Jul-2025
Issues
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Kilpennathur
-
12-Jun-2025
Issues
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Kilpennathur
-
29-Apr-2025
Issues
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Kilpennathur
-
25-Mar-2025
Issue of Service
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Kilpennathur
-
03-Mar-2025
Issue of Service
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Kilpennathur
-
03-Feb-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
04-Dec-2023
Case filed
Registration No. 160/2024
Summary: The petition filed by Anthoniyammal and Arokiyasamy under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC to set aside the ex-parte order dated 29.01.2024 was allowed. The court found that despite the 7-month delay in filing and unverified illness claims, allowing the petition serves the principle of fair trial in partition proceedings, as the defendants deserve an opportunity to contest the case. The petitioners were ordered to pay Rs. 1,000 as cost to the plaintiff's counsel by 23.10.2025. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts