SARASWATHI vs SUNDARRAJ Advocate - RAJKUMAR C — 177/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Or7R1,151. Disposed: Uncontested--Ex-Parte Decree on 18th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTS070004572025
Filing Number
398/2025
Filing Date
28-Apr-2025
Registration No
177/2025
Registration Date
28-Apr-2025
Court
Sub Court, Sankarankovil
Judge
1-Sub Judge
Decision Date
18-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Ex-Parte Decree
Last updated 19-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SARASWATHI
Adv. PANNEERSELVAM V
Respondent(s)
-
1.SUNDARRAJ Advocate - RAJKUMAR C
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
18-Mar-2026
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
Case Summary: 177/2025 - Saraswathi v. Sundarraj The court ruled that respondent Sundarraj must repay petitioner Saraswathi ₹2,90,067 (principal amount of ₹2,00,000 plus interest) within two months, with 9% interest from the loan date (26.07.2021) to judgment date and 6% thereafter. The court found that Sundarraj borrowed ₹2,00,000 from Saraswathi on 26.07.2021 against a mortgage pledge, but failed to repay despite repeated notices, warranting a first-instance decree against him and a personal decree for recovery through property attachment if payment is not made. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
18-Mar-2026
Disposed
Sub Judge
-
25-Feb-2026
Arguments
Sub Judge
-
26-Nov-2025
Ex-Parte Evidence
Sub Judge
-
19-Sep-2025
Written Statement
Sub Judge
-
19-Jun-2025
Written Statement
Sub Judge
-
28-Apr-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
28-Apr-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 177/2025
Case Summary: 177/2025 - Saraswathi v. Sundarraj The court ruled that respondent Sundarraj must repay petitioner Saraswathi ₹2,90,067 (principal amount of ₹2,00,000 plus interest) within two months, with 9% interest from the loan date (26.07.2021) to judgment date and 6% thereafter. The court found that Sundarraj borrowed ₹2,00,000 from Saraswathi on 26.07.2021 against a mortgage pledge, but failed to repay despite repeated notices, warranting a first-instance decree against him and a personal decree for recovery through property attachment if payment is not made. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts