Selvi vs Sankaran and 3 others Advocate - A.K.Karthick Kumar — 279/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O7,R1. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 03rd June 2026.

Evidence Next hearing 03-Jun-2026

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNTS010049932024

Filing Number

805/2024

Filing Date

28-Oct-2024

Registration No

279/2024

Registration Date

08-Nov-2024

Court

Principal District Court, Tenkasi

Judge

1-Principal District Judge

Last updated 10-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section O7,R1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Selvi

    Adv. Thiru.M.Karthikeyan

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Sankaran and 3 others Advocate - A.K.Karthick Kumar

  2. 2.P. Karuppaiya

    Adv. A.K.Karthick Kumar

  3. 3.Muppudathi

  4. 4.Palavesam

    Adv. A.K.Karthick Kumar

Case History

  1. 03-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 24-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  3. 17-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  4. 15-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  5. 06-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  6. 30-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  7. 24-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  8. 17-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  9. 10-Mar-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

    Summary In this civil suit (OS No. 279/2024) from the Principal District Court, Tenkasi dated 10.03.2026, witness P.W.2 (Balamurugan) was recalled for cross-examination regarding a disputed jewelry claim. The court allowed the witness's cross-examination to continue, during which the witness testified about video recordings made without consent and disputed claims about 100 pounds of gold jewelry allegedly pledged by the defendant Balraj. The cross-examination revealed contradictions in the witness's earlier statements, and the court ultimately rejected the witness's evidence, finding the video recording inadmissible and the claims regarding the jewelry unsubstantiated—no re-examination was permitted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  10. 10-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  11. 03-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  12. 24-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  13. 17-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  14. 10-Feb-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  15. 10-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  16. 03-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  17. 27-Jan-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  18. 27-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  19. 20-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  20. 15-Dec-2025

    Trial

    Principal District Judge

  21. 13-Oct-2025

    Trial

    Principal District Judge

  22. 04-Aug-2025

    Trial

    Principal District Judge

  23. 02-Aug-2025

    Issues

    Principal District Judge

  24. 19-Jul-2025

    Issues

    Principal District Judge

  25. 21-Jun-2025

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  26. 26-Apr-2025

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge

  27. 07-Apr-2025

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge

  28. 07-Mar-2025

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge

  29. 09-Dec-2024

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge

  30. 08-Nov-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  31. 28-Oct-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 279/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Summary In this civil suit (OS No. 279/2024) from the Principal District Court, Tenkasi dated 10.03.2026, witness P.W.2 (Balamurugan) was recalled for cross-examination regarding a disputed jewelry claim. The court allowed the witness's cross-examination to continue, during which the witness testified about video recordings made without consent and disputed claims about 100 pounds of gold jewelry allegedly pledged by the defendant Balraj. The cross-examination revealed contradictions in the witness's earlier statements, and the court ultimately rejected the witness's evidence, finding the video recording inadmissible and the claims regarding the jewelry unsubstantiated—no re-examination was permitted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case