A. Yugandhar vs L. Saradammal — 24/2023
Case under Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 25(d). Status: Written Statement. Next hearing: 24th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTR200000412023
Filing Number
49/2023
Filing Date
14-Feb-2023
Registration No
24/2023
Registration Date
17-Feb-2023
Court
District Munsif Court, Ponneri
Judge
1-District Munsif, Ponneri
Last updated 18-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.A. Yugandhar
Adv. B.S. Jothiraman
-
2.A. Gopi
-
3.A. Vijayadu
Respondent(s)
-
1.L. Saradammal
-
2.L. Rajalakshmi
-
3.D. Rajalakshmi
Case History
-
24-Mar-2026
Next hearingPending
-
06-Mar-2026
Written Statement
District Munsif, Ponneri
-
17-Feb-2026
Copy of OrderView PDF
-
17-Feb-2026
Copy of OrderView PDF
Summary The District Munsif Court of Ponneri dismissed a petition seeking rejection of the plaint in O.S. No.24 of 2023. The defendants/petitioners argued the suit was barred by limitation and lacked a valid cause of action regarding disputed land ownership. The court held that the plaint discloses a valid cause of action and that the limitation issue involves disputed factual questions requiring trial adjudication, therefore rejecting the plaint at the threshold was improper. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
17-Feb-2026
Written Statement
District Munsif, Ponneri
-
07-Feb-2026
Written Statement
District Munsif, Ponneri
-
28-Jan-2026
Written Statement
District Munsif, Ponneri
-
20-Jan-2026
Written Statement
District Munsif, Ponneri
-
19-Dec-2025
Written Statement
District Munsif, Ponneri
-
25-Nov-2025
Written Statement
District Munsif, Ponneri
-
07-Nov-2025
Written Statement
District Munsif, Ponneri
-
16-Oct-2025
Written Statement
District Munsif, Ponneri
-
20-Sep-2025
Written Statement
District Munsif, Ponneri
-
04-Sep-2025
Written Statement
District Munsif, Ponneri
-
18-Aug-2025
Written Statement
District Munsif, Ponneri
-
05-Aug-2025
Written Statement
District Munsif, Ponneri
-
28-Jul-2025
Written Statement
District Munsif, Ponneri
-
07-Jul-2025
Written Statement
District Munsif, Ponneri
-
19-Jun-2025
Written Statement
District Munsif, Ponneri
-
03-Jun-2025
Written Statement
District Munsif, Ponneri
-
02-Apr-2025
Written Statement
District Munsif, Ponneri
-
11-Mar-2025
Written Statement
District Munsif, Ponneri
-
04-Feb-2025
Written Statement
District Munsif, Ponneri
-
18-Dec-2024
Written Statement
District Munsif, Ponneri
-
18-Nov-2024
Written Statement
District Munsif, Ponneri
-
22-Oct-2024
Written Statement
District Munsif, Ponneri
-
24-Sep-2024
Written Statement
District Munsif, Ponneri
-
19-Sep-2024
Written Statement
District Munsif, Ponneri
-
17-Sep-2024
Written Statement
District Munsif, Ponneri
-
16-Aug-2024
Written Statement
District Munsif, Ponneri
-
01-Aug-2024
Written Statement
District Munsif, Ponneri
-
02-Jul-2024
Written Statement
District Munsif, Ponneri
-
11-Jun-2024
Written Statement
District Munsif, Ponneri
-
03-Apr-2024
IA Pending
District Munsif, Ponneri
-
19-Mar-2024
IA Pending
District Munsif, Ponneri
-
19-Feb-2024
IA Pending
District Munsif, Ponneri
-
19-Jan-2024
IA Pending
District Munsif, Ponneri
-
11-Dec-2023
IA Pending
District Munsif, Ponneri
-
17-Nov-2023
IA Pending
District Munsif, Ponneri
-
20-Oct-2023
IA Pending
District Munsif, Ponneri
-
04-Oct-2023
IA Pending
District Munsif, Ponneri
-
12-Sep-2023
IA Pending
District Munsif, Ponneri
-
14-Aug-2023
IA Pending
District Munsif, Ponneri
-
14-Jul-2023
IA Pending
District Munsif, Ponneri
-
09-Jun-2023
IA Pending
District Munsif, Ponneri
-
06-Jun-2023
IA Pending
District Munsif, Ponneri
-
18-Apr-2023
Issue of Service
District Munsif, Ponneri
-
28-Mar-2023
Issue of Service
District Munsif, Ponneri
-
21-Mar-2023
Issue of Service
District Munsif, Ponneri
-
17-Mar-2023
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
14-Feb-2023
Case filed
Registration No. 24/2023
Summary The District Munsif Court of Ponneri dismissed a petition seeking rejection of the plaint in O.S. No.24 of 2023. The defendants/petitioners argued the suit was barred by limitation and lacked a valid cause of action regarding disputed land ownership. The court held that the plaint discloses a valid cause of action and that the limitation issue involves disputed factual questions requiring trial adjudication, therefore rejecting the plaint at the threshold was improper. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts