ARULMIGU KAILASANADAR AND KOTTAIAMMAN TEMPLES, REP.BY ITS K.R.MAYURANATHA GURUKKA vs GANESAN K Advocate - KALAIMANI G — 77/2018

Case under Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 27(C),27(C). Status: Trial. Next hearing: 02nd April 2026.

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNVL230001112018

Trial

Next Hearing

02nd April 2026

Filing Number

77/2018

Filing Date

26-07-2018

Registration No

77/2018

Registration Date

26-07-2018

Court

District Munsif Court, Katpadi

Judge

1-District Munsif,Katpadi

Acts & Sections

Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 27(C),27(C)

Petitioner(s)

ARULMIGU KAILASANADAR AND KOTTAIAMMAN TEMPLES, REP.BY ITS K.R.MAYURANATHA GURUKKA

Adv. KULOTHUNGAN M

Respondent(s)

GANESAN K Advocate - KALAIMANI G

SWAMINATHAN R

Adv. KALAIMANI G

DEVARAJ

Adv. KALAIMANI G

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER

Adv. SELVARAJ T N K

Hearing History

Judge: 1-District Munsif,Katpadi

06-03-2026

Trial

26-02-2026

For further Proceedings

23-02-2026

For further Proceedings

10-02-2026

Amendment

07-02-2026

Amendment

Interim Orders

04-03-2024
Copy of Judgment

Summary: The petition filed by Arulmigu Kailasanadar and Kottaimman Temples to implead the newly elected Dharmakartha and Nattamai as 5th and 6th defendants (in place of the deceased original 1st and 2nd defendants) has been allowed. The court found the proposed parties are necessary for proper adjudication of the suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunctions regarding unauthorized construction on temple property, and effective judgment cannot be passed without them. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The petition filed by Arulmigu Kailasanadar and Kottaimman Temples to implead the newly elected Dharmakartha and Nattamai as 5th and 6th defendants (in place of the deceased original 1st and 2nd defendants) has been allowed. The court found the proposed parties are necessary for proper adjudication of the suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunctions regarding unauthorized construction on temple property, and effective judgment cannot be passed without them. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

District Munsif Court, Katpadi All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case