S. Hemavathy vs Welcome Promoters Pvt Ltd, Rep., by its director Mr. Sidharda, — 49/2020
Case under Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 25(d). Status: Part Heard. Next hearing: 25th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTR200000052020
Next Hearing
25th March 2026
Filing Number
6/2020
Filing Date
06-01-2020
Registration No
49/2020
Registration Date
15-12-2020
Court
District Munsif Court, Ponneri
Judge
1-District Munsif, Ponneri
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
S. Hemavathy
Adv. V. Purushothaman
Nirmala
Radhakrishnan
Respondent(s)
Welcome Promoters Pvt Ltd, Rep., by its director Mr. Sidharda,
E. Sidharda, Director of Velcome Promoters Pvt Ltd,
A. Selvaraj
M. Loganathan
Ezhil Palaniappa
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif, Ponneri
Part Heard
Part Heard
Part Heard
Part Heard
Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 11-03-2026 | Part Heard |
| 06-03-2026 | Part Heard |
| 23-02-2026 | Part Heard |
| 10-02-2026 | Part Heard |
| 06-02-2026 | Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Summary: The petition to implead M.L. Damodaran as the 4th plaintiff in Original Suit No. 49 of 2020 has been allowed. The District Munsif Court held that pre-trial amendments permitting the addition of necessary parties should be liberally allowed to ensure comprehensive adjudication. The court found that the proposed plaintiff's involvement as a witness to the General Power of Attorney (2008) and acknowledgment document made impleading essential for fair resolution of the property dispute. No costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The petition to implead M.L. Damodaran as the 4th plaintiff in Original Suit No. 49 of 2020 has been allowed. The District Munsif Court held that pre-trial amendments permitting the addition of necessary parties should be liberally allowed to ensure comprehensive adjudication. The court found that the proposed plaintiff's involvement as a witness to the General Power of Attorney (2008) and acknowledgment document made impleading essential for fair resolution of the property dispute. No costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts