CHINNAPPAN vs MARIYAPRAKASAM AND 6 OTHER — 160/2024

Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section Sec26,Or7,Ru1. Status: Written Statement. Next hearing: 16th June 2026.

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNTM240001612024

Written Statement

Next Hearing

16th June 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

81/2024

Filing Date

04-12-2023

Registration No

160/2024

Registration Date

04-12-2023

Court

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kilpennathur

Judge

1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Kilpennathur

Acts & Sections

CodeofCivilProcedure Section Sec26,Or7,Ru1
IA/2/2025 Classification : Petition to Set-aside Exparte Order or Decree Section CHINNAPPAN

Petitioner(s)

CHINNAPPAN

Adv. THIRU. V. PRAKASH BABU

Respondent(s)

MARIYAPRAKASAM AND 6 OTHER

ANTHONIYAMMAL

AROKIYASAMY

ANTHONYMUTHU

AROKIYAJOHN

EDWIN PAULRAJ

MATHALAMARI

Hearing History

Judge: 1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Kilpennathur

30-04-2026

Written Statement

07-04-2026

Written Statement

10-03-2026

Written Statement

12-02-2026

Written Statement

03-02-2026

Written Statement

Interim Orders

08-10-2025
I.A Order
08-10-2025
I.A Order

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kilpennathur All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case