SUSEELA vs MURALI Advocate - RATHINA KUMAR V — 68/2012
Case under Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 27(c),30,22. Status: IA Pending. Next hearing: 25th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNVL230000442012
Next Hearing
25th March 2026
Filing Number
68/2012
Filing Date
09-04-2012
Registration No
68/2012
Registration Date
12-04-2012
Court
District Munsif Court, Katpadi
Judge
1-District Munsif,Katpadi
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SUSEELA
Adv. JAGADESAN B
Respondent(s)
MURALI Advocate - RATHINA KUMAR V
RAVI
Adv. RATHINA KUMAR V
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif,Katpadi
IA Pending
IA Pending
IA Pending
IA Pending
IA Pending
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | IA Pending |
| 06-03-2026 | IA Pending |
| 19-02-2026 | IA Pending |
| 04-02-2026 | IA Pending |
| 09-01-2026 | IA Pending |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Court: District Munsif, Katpadi, Vellore District Case No: OS.No.68/2012 Date: November 25, 2025 The court rejected the Advocate Commissioner's affidavit filed in response to cross-examination by the plaintiff's counsel. The court found that the affidavit contained material omissions and inaccuracies regarding land survey records (S. No. 42/3b comprising 38.5 acres) and ownership details, and was not properly substantiated with complete documentation from the gram panchayat. The affidavit was deemed inadmissible due to these deficiencies and the affiant's failure to properly support the claims made therein. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Court: District Munsif, Katpadi, Vellore District Case No: OS.No.68/2012 Date: November 25, 2025 The court rejected the Advocate Commissioner's affidavit filed in response to cross-examination by the plaintiff's counsel. The court found that the affidavit contained material omissions and inaccuracies regarding land survey records (S. No. 42/3b comprising 38.5 acres) and ownership details, and was not properly substantiated with complete documentation from the gram panchayat. The affidavit was deemed inadmissible due to these deficiencies and the affiant's failure to properly support the claims made therein. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts