BALARAMAN S vs KASI S — 23/2022

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Status: IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending. Next hearing: 10th April 2026.

EP - Execution Petition

CNR: TNVL100000802022

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

Next Hearing

10th April 2026

Filing Number

110/2022

Filing Date

29-04-2022

Registration No

23/2022

Registration Date

01-06-2022

Court

District Munsif Court, Gudiyatham

Judge

2-District Munsif, Gudiyatham

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 26

Petitioner(s)

BALARAMAN S

Adv. RAMACHANDRAN G

Respondent(s)

KASI S

RAJ KUMAR K

JAYARAMAN S

GOPAL

HARI

CHANDRA SEKAR

GUNA

ANBU

VENKATESAN N

Hearing History

Judge: 2-District Munsif, Gudiyatham

06-03-2026

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

13-02-2026

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

23-01-2026

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

16-12-2025

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

20-11-2025

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

Interim Orders

16-12-2025
Copy of Judgment

Summary The petition filed by S. Balaraman for appointment of an advocate commissioner to document damages to the suit property, pipeline, and channel was dismissed without cost by the District Munsif Court, Gudiyattam on December 16, 2025. The court held that the petitioner cannot use this petition to collect evidence for rights not decreed in the original OS.157/2013 judgment and failed to show sufficient cause, as damages were already the subject of a separate damages suit (OS.41/2018) filed seven years prior. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The petition filed by S. Balaraman for appointment of an advocate commissioner to document damages to the suit property, pipeline, and channel was dismissed without cost by the District Munsif Court, Gudiyattam on December 16, 2025. The court held that the petitioner cannot use this petition to collect evidence for rights not decreed in the original OS.157/2013 judgment and failed to show sufficient cause, as damages were already the subject of a separate damages suit (OS.41/2018) filed seven years prior. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

District Munsif Court, Gudiyatham All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case