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

Issues

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

Code of Civil Procedure Section O7,R1
Ia/1/2025 Classification : Inherent Powers of Court Section Biju FrancisVijayan

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

23-03-2026

Issues

13-03-2026

Issues

10-03-2026

Issues

02-02-2026

Issues

27-01-2026

Written Statement

Interim Orders

23-03-2026
Copy of Order
23-03-2026
Copy of Order
23-03-2026
Copy of Order
23-03-2026
Copy of Order

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Principal District Court, Tenkasi All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case