Biju Francis vs Vijayan Advocate - S.Anilkumar — 212/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O7,R1. Status: Issues. Next hearing: 14th July 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTS010044642025
Next Hearing
14th July 2026
Filing Number
940/2025
Filing Date
13-08-2025
Registration No
212/2025
Registration Date
14-08-2025
Court
Principal District Court, Tenkasi
Judge
2-Additional District Session Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Biju Francis
Adv. Thiru.P.G.Santhosh Kumar
Respondent(s)
Vijayan Advocate - S.Anilkumar
Chelcy
Adv. S.Anilkumar
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Additional District Session Judge
Issues
Issues
Issues
Issues
Written Statement
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | Issues |
| 13-03-2026 | Issues |
| 10-03-2026 | Issues |
| 02-02-2026 | Issues |
| 27-01-2026 | Written Statement |
Interim Orders
Summary: The petition for temporary injunction filed by Biju Francis K was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Tenkasi on March 23, 2026. The petitioner sought to restrain the respondents from alienating 20-1/2 cents of land based on a sale agreement dated 18.08.2022, but the court found that the validity and execution of this agreement are seriously disputed with allegations of fabrication and forgery requiring full trial. The court determined that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case or prove balance of convenience in his favor, particularly since the respondents are already in possession of the property and have completed transactions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The petition for temporary injunction filed by Biju Francis K was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Tenkasi on March 23, 2026. The petitioner sought to restrain the respondents from alienating 20-1/2 cents of land based on a sale agreement dated 18.08.2022, but the court found that the validity and execution of this agreement are seriously disputed with allegations of fabrication and forgery requiring full trial. The court determined that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case or prove balance of convenience in his favor, particularly since the respondents are already in possession of the property and have completed transactions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts