Kannan vs Samydurai Advocate - S.Rajkumar M.A. L.L.B. — 23/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O7,R1. Disposed: Uncontested--Dismissed on 16th April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTS110005642025
Filing Number
36/2025
Filing Date
03-Mar-2025
Registration No
23/2025
Registration Date
11-Mar-2025
Court
District Munsif Court, Shengottah
Judge
1-District Munsif
Decision Date
16-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Dismissed
Last updated 20-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Kannan
Adv. Tr. K. Rajmahendran
Respondent(s)
-
1.Samydurai Advocate - S.Rajkumar M.A. L.L.B.
-
2.Manoj Kumar
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
16-Apr-2026
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
Case 23/2025 Summary: The District Munsiff Court, Chengalpattu dismissed the suit filed by Kannan against Samydurai Advocate and Manoj Kumar for non-prosecution. The plaintiff failed to appear on the hearing date (16.04.2026) and provided no representation despite multiple prior opportunities granted by the court to prosecute the case. The court found the prolonged inaction constituted lack of diligence and unnecessary delay, warranting dismissal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
16-Apr-2026
Disposed
District Munsif
-
09-Apr-2026
Ex-Parte Evidence
District Munsif
-
23-Mar-2026
Ex-Parte Evidence
District Munsif
-
18-Mar-2026
Ex-Parte Evidence
District Munsif
-
16-Mar-2026
Ex-Parte Evidence
District Munsif
-
09-Feb-2026
Ex-Parte Evidence
-
29-Jan-2026
Ex-Parte Evidence
-
05-Dec-2025
IA Pending
-
30-Oct-2025
IA Pending
-
25-Sep-2025
IA Pending
-
23-Aug-2025
IA Pending
-
07-Aug-2025
IA Pending
-
19-Jul-2025
IA Pending
-
23-Jun-2025
IA Pending
-
11-Jun-2025
IA Pending
-
16-Apr-2025
Written Statement
-
11-Mar-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
03-Mar-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 23/2025
Case 23/2025 Summary: The District Munsiff Court, Chengalpattu dismissed the suit filed by Kannan against Samydurai Advocate and Manoj Kumar for non-prosecution. The plaintiff failed to appear on the hearing date (16.04.2026) and provided no representation despite multiple prior opportunities granted by the court to prosecute the case. The court found the prolonged inaction constituted lack of diligence and unnecessary delay, warranting dismissal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts