SADHASIVAM M vs NEELAMEGAM Advocate - NEELAMEGAM P — 45/2018
Case under Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 27(c). Status: IA Pending. Next hearing: 01st April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNVL230000862018
Next Hearing
01st April 2026
Filing Number
45/2018
Filing Date
31-10-2017
Registration No
45/2018
Registration Date
25-04-2018
Court
District Munsif Court, Katpadi
Judge
1-District Munsif,Katpadi
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SADHASIVAM M
Adv. SATHYAMOORTHY K N
Respondent(s)
NEELAMEGAM Advocate - NEELAMEGAM P
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif,Katpadi
IA Pending
For further Proceedings
Steps
Steps
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | IA Pending |
| 06-03-2026 | For further Proceedings |
| 05-02-2026 | Steps |
| 23-01-2026 | Steps |
| 12-01-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary: The District Munsif Court, Katpadi allowed the plaintiff's petition (I.A. No. 03 of 2023) to amend the plaint in a property declaration and injunction suit. The court permitted amendment of the cause title, pleadings, prayers, and particulars of valuation to implead the second respondent as a defendant, as he had purchased part of the suit property from the first defendant during the pendency of the suit. The court found the amendment necessary and consequential, as the second respondent had already been impleaded in an earlier order, and allowing the amendment would not prejudice the respondents. No costs were imposed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The District Munsif Court, Katpadi allowed the plaintiff's petition (I.A. No. 03 of 2023) to amend the plaint in a property declaration and injunction suit. The court permitted amendment of the cause title, pleadings, prayers, and particulars of valuation to implead the second respondent as a defendant, as he had purchased part of the suit property from the first defendant during the pendency of the suit. The court found the amendment necessary and consequential, as the second respondent had already been impleaded in an earlier order, and allowing the amendment would not prejudice the respondents. No costs were imposed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts