Kamaraj and 2 others vs T.Murugaiah Thevar and other Advocate - Tr. K. Rajmahendran — 180/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Or.7, R.1. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 25th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTS050002662023
Next Hearing
25th March 2026
Filing Number
368/2023
Filing Date
01-08-2023
Registration No
180/2023
Registration Date
01-08-2023
Court
Principal District Munsif Court, Tenkasi
Judge
6-Principal District Munsif
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Kamaraj and 2 others
Adv. Tr.R.Ganapathy
Esakkimuthu
Adv. R.Ganapathy
Ramachandran
Adv. R.Ganapathy
Respondent(s)
T.Murugaiah Thevar and other Advocate - Tr. K. Rajmahendran
Pitchammal
Adv. Tr. K. Rajmahendran
Hearing History
Judge: 6-Principal District Munsif
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 05-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 24-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 13-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 10-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 05-02-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary: This is a witness deposition (PW3) in O.S. No. 180/2023 before the Principal District Munsif, Tenkasi, dated 05.03.2026. The witness, a police constable from Suranai Police Station, testified regarding five criminal cases (FIRs 355/2020, 361/2020, 499/2020, 585/2020, and 173/2023), providing information obtained from the CCTNS database. The court's cross-examination notes indicate that FIRs 355/2020 and 585/2020 were marked as bail cases, and ruled that the evidence (Exhibit 1) submitted without CCTV authorization should not be admitted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: This is a witness deposition (PW3) in O.S. No. 180/2023 before the Principal District Munsif, Tenkasi, dated 05.03.2026. The witness, a police constable from Suranai Police Station, testified regarding five criminal cases (FIRs 355/2020, 361/2020, 499/2020, 585/2020, and 173/2023), providing information obtained from the CCTNS database. The court's cross-examination notes indicate that FIRs 355/2020 and 585/2020 were marked as bail cases, and ruled that the evidence (Exhibit 1) submitted without CCTV authorization should not be admitted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts