Vijayalakshmi vs Kavitha Sri — 104/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 7(1). Status: Trial. Next hearing: 09th April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNVP010023722025
Filing Number
343/2025
Filing Date
28-Apr-2025
Registration No
104/2025
Registration Date
28-Apr-2025
Court
Principal District Court, Viluppuram
Judge
1-Principal District Judge
Last updated 25-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Vijayalakshmi
Adv. Subramanian. T.S.
Respondent(s)
-
1.Kavitha Sri
-
2.Minor Hariharan Rep.by. Mother Kavitha Sri
-
3.Minor Karthiyayani Rep.by. Mother Kavitha Sri
-
4.Rani
Case History
-
09-Apr-2026
Next hearingPending
-
06-Mar-2026
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
19-Feb-2026
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
19-Jan-2026
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
12-Dec-2025
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
12-Nov-2025
Trial
Principal District Judge
-
13-Oct-2025
Written Statement
Principal District Judge
-
11-Sep-2025
Fair OrderView PDF
SUMMARY The petition for attachment before judgment has been dismissed. The court found that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case or concrete evidence that respondents intended to alienate the deceased borrower's property to defeat execution of a potential decree. However, the petitioner's rights regarding her monetary claim remain unaffected, and she may seek execution against the deceased's estate if judgment is passed in her favor. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
11-Sep-2025
Written Statement
Principal District Judge
-
11-Aug-2025
Orders
Principal District Judge
-
23-Jul-2025
Written Statement
Principal District Judge
-
10-Jul-2025
Written Statement
Principal District Judge
-
11-Jun-2025
Written Statement
Principal District Judge
-
28-Apr-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
28-Apr-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 104/2025
SUMMARY The petition for attachment before judgment has been dismissed. The court found that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case or concrete evidence that respondents intended to alienate the deceased borrower's property to defeat execution of a potential decree. However, the petitioner's rights regarding her monetary claim remain unaffected, and she may seek execution against the deceased's estate if judgment is passed in her favor. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts