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
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
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
For further Proceedings
For further Proceedings
For further Proceedings
For further Proceedings
For further Proceedings
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts