Krishnamoorthy vs Arul Pazhani — 426/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 7(1). Disposed: Uncontested--Decreed with cost on 24th April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNVP020007692025
Filing Number
838/2025
Filing Date
02-Jul-2025
Registration No
426/2025
Registration Date
10-Jul-2025
Court
Principal Sub Court, Viluppuram
Judge
3-Principal Sub Judge
Decision Date
24-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Decreed with cost
Last updated 14-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Krishnamoorthy
Adv. Gopinath. J
Respondent(s)
-
1.Arul Pazhani
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
24-Apr-2026
Disposed
Principal Sub Judge
-
22-Apr-2026
Judgement
Principal Sub Judge
-
08-Apr-2026
DepositionView PDF
Case 426/2025 Summary On 08.04.2026, witness PW2 (Devendran) testified before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Villupuram in OS No. 426/2025 between Krishnamoorthy and Arul Pazhani. The witness confirmed the authenticity of his affidavit and testified accordingly, while the respondent did not cross-examine as they were deemed to have defaulted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
08-Apr-2026
Judgement
Principal Sub Judge
-
16-Mar-2026
Evidence
Principal Sub Judge
-
11-Mar-2026
DepositionView PDF
-
11-Mar-2026
Evidence
Principal Sub Judge
-
25-Feb-2026
Ex-Parte Evidence
Principal Sub Judge
-
21-Jan-2026
Ex-Parte Evidence
Principal Sub Judge
-
08-Jan-2026
Written Statement
Principal Sub Judge
-
03-Dec-2025
Written Statement
Principal Sub Judge
-
06-Nov-2025
Written Statement
Principal Sub Judge
-
15-Oct-2025
Written Statement
Principal Sub Judge
-
11-Sep-2025
Written Statement
Principal Sub Judge
-
11-Aug-2025
Written Statement
Principal Sub Judge
-
10-Jul-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
02-Jul-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 426/2025
Case 426/2025 Summary On 08.04.2026, witness PW2 (Devendran) testified before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Villupuram in OS No. 426/2025 between Krishnamoorthy and Arul Pazhani. The witness confirmed the authenticity of his affidavit and testified accordingly, while the respondent did not cross-examine as they were deemed to have defaulted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts