P.C. Munusamy Raju vs Kannaiah — 28/2025
Case under Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 27(c). Status: IA Pending. Next hearing: 08th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTR210000372025
Filing Number
54/2025
Filing Date
26-May-2025
Registration No
28/2025
Registration Date
16-Jun-2025
Court
District Munsif Court, Tiruttani
Judge
2-District Munsif
Last updated 29-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.P.C. Munusamy Raju
Adv. G. Mohan Ram, G. Kamalakannan
Respondent(s)
-
1.Kannaiah
-
2.S. Vijaya
Case History
-
08-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
22-Apr-2026
IA Pending
District Munsif
-
18-Mar-2026
IA Pending
District Munsif
-
13-Mar-2026
IA Pending
District Munsif
-
12-Mar-2026
IA Pending
District Munsif
-
23-Feb-2026
IA Pending
District Munsif
-
06-Feb-2026
Copy of DepositionView PDF
Case 28/2025 Summary In this civil suit filed by P.C. Munusamy Raju (60, farmer from Tirutanni) against Kannaiah and S. Vijaya, the District Munsiff Court, Tirutanni held the first examination of Petitioner's Witness 1 on 06.02.2026. The petitioner testified and confirmed his affidavit's authenticity. The case was adjourned to allow counsel to mark documents as exhibits, pending further proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
06-Feb-2026
IA Pending
District Munsif
-
09-Jan-2026
IA Pending
District Munsif
-
11-Dec-2025
IA Pending
District Munsif
-
17-Nov-2025
IA Pending
District Munsif
-
23-Oct-2025
IA Pending
District Munsif
-
16-Sep-2025
IA Pending
District Munsif
-
26-Aug-2025
Ex-Parte Evidence
District Munsif
-
22-Jul-2025
Issue of Service
District Munsif
-
21-Jul-2025
Issue of Service
District Munsif
-
16-Jun-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
26-May-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 28/2025
Case 28/2025 Summary In this civil suit filed by P.C. Munusamy Raju (60, farmer from Tirutanni) against Kannaiah and S. Vijaya, the District Munsiff Court, Tirutanni held the first examination of Petitioner's Witness 1 on 06.02.2026. The petitioner testified and confirmed his affidavit's authenticity. The case was adjourned to allow counsel to mark documents as exhibits, pending further proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts