M. Raja vs M. Usha — 76/2023

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 7 R 1. Status: Issues. Next hearing: 01st April 2026.

Issues Next hearing 01-Apr-2026 this date has passed

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNTR160000852023

Filing Number

122/2023

Filing Date

14-Sep-2023

Registration No

76/2023

Registration Date

14-Sep-2023

Court

District Munsif Court, Tiruvottiyur

Judge

1-District Munsif

Last updated 18-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 7 R 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M. Raja

    Adv. S. Praveen, R. Kannan G. Deepan

  2. 2.R. Devi

    Adv. S. Praveen

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.M. Usha

  2. 2.M. Vasantharaj

  3. 3.R. Munusamy

Case History

  1. 01-Apr-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 13-Mar-2026

    Issues

    District Munsif

  3. 06-Mar-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    Summary: The District Munsif Court, Thiruvottiyur dismissed the petition filed by M. Raja and R. Devi seeking an ad interim injunction to restrain interference with their possession of a shop. The court found that the petitioners failed to provide proper evidence to prove alleged interference by the respondents and noted that detailed evaluation of evidence is required, which cannot be done at the interlocutory stage. The petition was dismissed without costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 06-Mar-2026

    Issues

    District Munsif

  5. 02-Mar-2026

    Issues

    District Munsif

  6. 26-Feb-2026

    Issues

    District Munsif

  7. 23-Feb-2026

    Issues

    District Munsif

  8. 13-Feb-2026

    Issues

    District Munsif

  9. 22-Jan-2026

    Issues

    District Munsif

  10. 17-Dec-2025

    Issues

    District Munsif

  11. 09-Dec-2025

    Issues

    District Munsif

  12. 21-Nov-2025

    Issues

    District Munsif

  13. 07-Nov-2025

    Issues

    District Munsif

  14. 15-Oct-2025

    Issues

    District Munsif

  15. 16-Sep-2025

    Issues

    District Munsif

  16. 26-Aug-2025

    Issues

    District Munsif

  17. 11-Aug-2025

    Issues

    District Munsif

  18. 17-Jul-2025

    Issues

    District Munsif

  19. 15-Jul-2025

    Written Statement

    District Munsif

  20. 30-Jun-2025

    Written Statement

    District Munsif

  21. 20-Jun-2025

    Written Statement

    District Munsif

  22. 04-Jun-2025

    Written Statement

    District Munsif

  23. 28-Apr-2025

    Written Statement

    District Munsif

  24. 09-Apr-2025

    Written Statement

    District Munsif

  25. 27-Mar-2025

    Written Statement

    District Munsif

  26. 03-Mar-2025

    Written Statement

    District Munsif

  27. 20-Feb-2025

    Written Statement

    District Munsif

  28. 06-Feb-2025

    Appearance

    District Munsif

  29. 20-Dec-2024

    Appearance

    District Munsif

  30. 29-Oct-2024

    Appearance

    District Munsif

  31. 03-Oct-2024

    Appearance

    District Munsif

  32. 11-Sep-2024

    Appearance

    District Munsif

  33. 13-Aug-2024

    Written Statement

    District Munsif

  34. 04-Jul-2024

    Written Statement

    District Munsif

  35. 06-Jun-2024

    Batta

    District Munsif

  36. 25-Apr-2024

    Batta

    District Munsif

  37. 19-Apr-2024

    Batta

    District Munsif

  38. 18-Mar-2024

    Batta

    District Munsif

  39. 29-Feb-2024

    Batta

    District Munsif

  40. 07-Feb-2024

    Batta

    District Munsif

  41. 10-Jan-2024

    Batta

    District Munsif

  42. 15-Dec-2023

    Batta

    District Munsif

  43. 05-Dec-2023

    Batta

    District Munsif

  44. 02-Nov-2023

    Batta

    District Munsif

  45. 13-Oct-2023

    Batta

    District Munsif

  46. 14-Sep-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  47. 14-Sep-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 76/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The District Munsif Court, Thiruvottiyur dismissed the petition filed by M. Raja and R. Devi seeking an ad interim injunction to restrain interference with their possession of a shop. The court found that the petitioners failed to provide proper evidence to prove alleged interference by the respondents and noted that detailed evaluation of evidence is required, which cannot be done at the interlocutory stage. The petition was dismissed without costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case