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
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
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
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 05-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 02-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 24-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 23-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 20-02-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
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.
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
Explore other courts