NAGARAJAN vs VENKATESAN — 116/2024

Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section Sec26,Or7,Ru1. Disposed: Contested--Decreed with cost on 02nd April 2026.

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNTM240003272024

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

164/2024

Filing Date

14-11-2022

Registration No

116/2024

Registration Date

14-11-2022

Court

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kilpennathur

Judge

1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Kilpennathur

Decision Date

02nd April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Decreed with cost

Acts & Sections

CodeofCivilProcedure Section Sec26,Or7,Ru1

Petitioner(s)

NAGARAJAN

Adv. THIRU. S. KANNAN

Respondent(s)

VENKATESAN

Hearing History

Judge: 1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Kilpennathur

02-04-2026

Disposed

01-04-2026

Judgement

27-03-2026

Judgement

24-03-2026

Judgement

17-03-2026

Arguments

Final Orders / Judgements

02-04-2026

Copy of Judgment

Interim Orders

13-11-2025
Copy of Deposition

This document is a witness examination transcript (PW2 testimony) in a civil suit before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court in Kilpennathur, Tamil Nadu. The witness testifies about a promissory note (loan agreement) for Rs. 50,000 with interest, and admits under cross-examination that he provided false testimony by using the defendant's father's incorrect name and the defendant's forged signature, acknowledging he intentionally conspired to deceive the court. The judge's concluding remarks affirm the witness testimony as recorded and note the procedural compliance with evidence documentation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

This document is a witness examination transcript (PW2 testimony) in a civil suit before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court in Kilpennathur, Tamil Nadu. The witness testifies about a promissory note (loan agreement) for Rs. 50,000 with interest, and admits under cross-examination that he provided false testimony by using the defendant's father's incorrect name and the defendant's forged signature, acknowledging he intentionally conspired to deceive the court. The judge's concluding remarks affirm the witness testimony as recorded and note the procedural compliance with evidence documentation. 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