SELVAM M (DIED) vs SRI HARI R (DIED) — 28/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O7R1S26. Status: For further Proceedings. Next hearing: 07th April 2026.

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNVL010008472025

For further Proceedings

Next Hearing

07th April 2026

Filing Number

201/2025

Filing Date

17-02-2025

Registration No

28/2025

Registration Date

17-02-2025

Court

Principal District Court, Vellore

Judge

3-Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court), Vellore

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section O7R1S26

Petitioner(s)

SELVAM M (DIED)

VASANTHA S

Adv. GUNASEELAN V

NANDAKUMAR S

Adv. GUNASEELAN V

VANITHA S

Adv. GUNASEELAN V

MINOR SETHURAMAN S

Adv. GUNASEELAN V

Respondent(s)

SRI HARI R (DIED)

SANTHA SRI HARI

Adv. KULOTHUNGAN M

BALAKRISHNAN S

Adv. KULOTHUNGAN M

ANITHA

Adv. KULOTHUNGAN M

PREETHA

GEETHA

Adv. KULOTHUNGAN M

Hearing History

Judge: 3-Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court), Vellore

17-03-2026

For further Proceedings

12-03-2026

For further Proceedings

06-03-2026

For further Proceedings

26-02-2026

For further Proceedings

23-02-2026

For further Proceedings

Interim Orders

06-11-2025
IA ORDER
06-11-2025
IA ORDER

SUMMARY: The Additional District Judge, Vellore dismissed an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint in a specific performance suit. The defendants argued that the plaintiff failed to exhaust mandatory remedies under the Registration Act (Sections 71-77) before filing suit, thus lacking cause of action. However, the court found that the plaint disclosed sufficient cause of action based on its averments, and questions regarding non-exhaustion of remedies constitute disputed matters of fact to be decided during trial, not at the rejection stage. The court imposed costs on the petitioners for raising this plea belatedly after 15 years without mentioning it in their written statement filed in 2023. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

SUMMARY: The Additional District Judge, Vellore dismissed an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint in a specific performance suit. The defendants argued that the plaintiff failed to exhaust mandatory remedies under the Registration Act (Sections 71-77) before filing suit, thus lacking cause of action. However, the court found that the plaint disclosed sufficient cause of action based on its averments, and questions regarding non-exhaustion of remedies constitute disputed matters of fact to be decided during trial, not at the rejection stage. The court imposed costs on the petitioners for raising this plea belatedly after 15 years without mentioning it in their written statement filed in 2023. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

Principal District Court, Vellore All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case