Gopinath vs Ayiraperi Panchayat president and 2 others Advocate - Tr.A.Murugan — 256/2023

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Or.7,R.1. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 26th March 2026.

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNTS060000102025

Evidence

Next Hearing

26th March 2026

Filing Number

11/2025

Filing Date

04-10-2023

Registration No

256/2023

Registration Date

04-10-2023

Court

Additional District Munsif Court, Tenkasi

Judge

7-Additional District Munsif

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section Or.7,R.1

Petitioner(s)

Gopinath

Adv. Tr.M.R.K. Pandiyaraj

Respondent(s)

Ayiraperi Panchayat president and 2 others Advocate - Tr.A.Murugan

District Development officer

Adv. Tr.A.Murugan

Project Director

Adv. Tr.A.Murugan

Hearing History

Judge: 7-Additional District Munsif

05-03-2026

Evidence

02-03-2026

Evidence

24-02-2026

Evidence

23-02-2026

Evidence

20-02-2026

Evidence

Interim Orders

24-02-2026
Copy of Deposition

Case Summary Case No.: O.S. No. 256/2023 | Date: 24.02.2026 In this civil suit concerning agricultural land (Survey No. 173, measuring 5.3/4 acres), the court examined cross-examination evidence from the defendant (PW1 Gopinath). The court rejected the defendant's arguments that the plaintiff lacked authority to file the suit, that the land's condition was unsuitable for agriculture, and that a water canal constructed on the land negated the need for relief. The court found the defendant's claims unsubstantiated and dismissed all his objections. The suit proceeds on merits with no further cross-examination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary Case No.: O.S. No. 256/2023 | Date: 24.02.2026 In this civil suit concerning agricultural land (Survey No. 173, measuring 5.3/4 acres), the court examined cross-examination evidence from the defendant (PW1 Gopinath). The court rejected the defendant's arguments that the plaintiff lacked authority to file the suit, that the land's condition was unsuitable for agriculture, and that a water canal constructed on the land negated the need for relief. The court found the defendant's claims unsubstantiated and dismissed all his objections. The suit proceeds on merits with no further cross-examination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

Additional District Munsif Court, Tenkasi All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case