Ramesh vs K.S. Duraisami — 79/2020
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Or.1, R.1. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 03rd June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTV060001042020
Next Hearing
03rd June 2026
Filing Number
104/2020
Filing Date
07-09-2020
Registration No
79/2020
Registration Date
14-09-2020
Court
District Munsif Court, Mannargudi
Judge
1-District Munsif
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ramesh
Adv. Thiru.Kathaka.PorCheliyan
Respondent(s)
K.S. Duraisami
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 27-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 10-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 25-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 18-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 13-03-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
CASE SUMMARY: O.S. No. 79/2020 - I.A. No. 407/2024 Court: District Munsif Court, Mannargudi Order Date: November 11, 2024 Petitioner: Ramesh (Plaintiff in main case) Respondent: K.S. Duraisami (Defendant in main case) --- Outcome: The Court allowed the Interim Application (I.A. No. 407/2024) filed by the petitioner/plaintiff. The petitioner sought permission to examine additional witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff despite missing the prescribed deadline for filing the witness list. The court, considering that (1) the delay was excusable, (2) the witnesses are essential to prove the plaintiff's case, (3) no prejudice would result to the defendant, and (4) the trial court must give parties a fair opportunity to prove their cases, permitted the petitioner to examine additional witnesses for the plaintiff in the original suit. No costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
CASE SUMMARY: O.S. No. 79/2020 - I.A. No. 407/2024 Court: District Munsif Court, Mannargudi Order Date: November 11, 2024 Petitioner: Ramesh (Plaintiff in main case) Respondent: K.S. Duraisami (Defendant in main case) --- Outcome: The Court allowed the Interim Application (I.A. No. 407/2024) filed by the petitioner/plaintiff. The petitioner sought permission to examine additional witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff despite missing the prescribed deadline for filing the witness list. The court, considering that (1) the delay was excusable, (2) the witnesses are essential to prove the plaintiff's case, (3) no prejudice would result to the defendant, and (4) the trial court must give parties a fair opportunity to prove their cases, permitted the petitioner to examine additional witnesses for the plaintiff in the original suit. No costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts