Umesh kumar vs Vasu @ Vasudevan Advocate - C. Nagendran babu — 115/2013

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section order7rule1. Status: Judgement. Next hearing: 25th March 2026.

OS - Original Suit (Title)

CNR: TNTR200001682013

Judgement

Next Hearing

25th March 2026

Filing Number

115/2013

Filing Date

22-04-2013

Registration No

115/2013

Registration Date

22-04-2013

Court

District Munsif Court, Ponneri

Judge

1-District Munsif, Ponneri

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section order7rule1

Petitioner(s)

Umesh kumar

Adv. R.Kamaraj

Respondent(s)

Vasu @ Vasudevan Advocate - C. Nagendran babu

Hearing History

Judge: 1-District Munsif, Ponneri

12-03-2026

Judgement

09-03-2026

Compliance

06-03-2026

Judgement

24-02-2026

Arguments

17-02-2026

Arguments

Interim Orders

13-03-2023
Copy of Order
13-03-2023
Copy of Order
02-09-2025
Copy of Order
02-09-2025
Copy of Order
27-01-2026
Copy of Order
27-01-2026
Copy of Order
27-01-2026
Copy of Order

Case Summary Outcome: Both Interlocutory Applications (IA.9 and IA.10 of 2025) dismissed without costs. Key Order: The District Munsif, Ponneri, rejected the plaintiffs' petitions seeking to summon the Tahsildar as a witness and reopen evidence in Original Suit No.115/2013 (a property dispute). The court held that the plaintiffs already had adequate opportunity to examine the Revenue Divisional Officer (a superior official) on the same matter and had marked documents through him. Reopening evidence at the final arguments stage would merely prolong proceedings without advancing justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary Outcome: Both Interlocutory Applications (IA.9 and IA.10 of 2025) dismissed without costs. Key Order: The District Munsif, Ponneri, rejected the plaintiffs' petitions seeking to summon the Tahsildar as a witness and reopen evidence in Original Suit No.115/2013 (a property dispute). The court held that the plaintiffs already had adequate opportunity to examine the Revenue Divisional Officer (a superior official) on the same matter and had marked documents through him. Reopening evidence at the final arguments stage would merely prolong proceedings without advancing justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

District Munsif Court, Ponneri All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case