B.MUNIRATHNAM NAIDU vs YASODAMMA (DIED) — 125/2013

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U/O7R1CPC. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 05th June 2026.

OS - Original Suit (Title)

CNR: TNTR210000432013

Evidence

Next Hearing

05th June 2026

Filing Number

125/2013

Filing Date

04-09-2013

Registration No

125/2013

Registration Date

06-09-2013

Court

District Munsif Court, Tiruttani

Judge

2-District Munsif

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section U/O7R1CPC

Petitioner(s)

B.MUNIRATHNAM NAIDU

Adv. P.C. Santhya Rani

Respondent(s)

YASODAMMA (DIED)

Kasthuri

Adv. V. Kishore Reddy

Muniamma

Adv. V. Kishore Reddy

Duraiswamy Mandadi (Died)

Venkatesulu

Adv. V. Kishore Reddy

Velu

Adv. V. Kishore Reddy

Chengamma

Adv. V. Kishore Reddy

Santhi

Adv. V. Kishore Reddy

The Thasildhar, Tiruttani

The Revenue Divisional officer, Tiruttani

The District Collector, Tiruvallur

The Head Surveyor

Hearing History

Judge: 2-District Munsif

21-04-2026

Evidence

08-04-2026

Evidence

27-03-2026

Evidence

18-03-2026

Evidence

12-03-2026

Evidence

Interim Orders

27-01-2025
Copy of Order
27-01-2025
Copy of Decree
31-10-2025
Copy of Order
11-03-2026
Copy of Deposition

Case Summary: 125/2013 In this District Civil Court case from Tirutani (dated 11.03.2026), the first examination of defendant's second witness (Venkatesen, 40-year-old farmer) was conducted. The witness testified under Section 1873 of the Indian Evidence Act, confirming the affidavit filed by the defendant's counsel and acknowledging the signature as his own. The case was adjourned to allow counsel to mark/index the continuation documents as evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 125/2013 In this District Civil Court case from Tirutani (dated 11.03.2026), the first examination of defendant's second witness (Venkatesen, 40-year-old farmer) was conducted. The witness testified under Section 1873 of the Indian Evidence Act, confirming the affidavit filed by the defendant's counsel and acknowledging the signature as his own. The case was adjourned to allow counsel to mark/index the continuation documents as evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

District Munsif Court, Tiruttani All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case