N. Sekar vs P.N.Ravi — 197/2020
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section u/s22. Status: IA Pending. Next hearing: 09th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTR220002482020
Next Hearing
09th June 2026
Filing Number
350/2020
Filing Date
15-10-2020
Registration No
197/2020
Registration Date
18-11-2020
Court
District Munsif Court, Ambattur
Judge
1-District Munsif
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
N. Sekar
Adv. Golden law Associates, A. Vijayakannan
Respondent(s)
P.N.Ravi
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif
IA Pending
IA Pending
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | IA Pending |
| 06-01-2026 | IA Pending |
| 11-11-2025 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 15-09-2025 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 14-08-2025 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
Interim Orders
Summary: The District Munsif Court at Ambattur partly allowed the defendant's petition and granted conditional leave to defend the suit in a property dispute involving alleged construction defects. The defendant must file a written statement by 04.06.2025 and cooperate with trial. The court found prima facie grounds for defense regarding liability and set-off, noting a pending Consumer Forum order supporting the defendant's claims of defective construction. No deposit was required, and each party bears its own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The District Munsif Court at Ambattur partly allowed the defendant's petition and granted conditional leave to defend the suit in a property dispute involving alleged construction defects. The defendant must file a written statement by 04.06.2025 and cooperate with trial. The court found prima facie grounds for defense regarding liability and set-off, noting a pending Consumer Forum order supporting the defendant's claims of defective construction. No deposit was required, and each party bears its own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts