Murugesan vs A.Narayanasamy — 106/2022
Case under Suits Valuation Act Section sec22. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 13th July 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNVP190004182022
Next Hearing
13th July 2026
Filing Number
484/2022
Filing Date
08-06-2022
Registration No
106/2022
Registration Date
10-06-2022
Court
Sub Court, Gingee
Judge
1-Subordinate Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Murugesan
Adv. Thiru.A.Devakumar, B.Sc., B.L.,
Respondent(s)
A.Narayanasamy
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Subordinate Judge
Evidence
Additional Written Statement
Additional Written Statement
Additional Written Statement
Additional Written Statement
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-06-2026 | Evidence |
| 20-04-2026 | Additional Written Statement |
| 16-03-2026 | Additional Written Statement |
| 17-02-2026 | Additional Written Statement |
| 03-02-2026 | Additional Written Statement |
Interim Orders
Summary of Case 106/2022: Murugesan vs A.Narayanasamy In this civil suit heard on 07.06.2024, the court examined testimony regarding a loan dispute. The petitioner (Murugesan), a village administrative officer, claimed to have borrowed ₹50,000 from respondent A. Narayanasamy and provided a promissory note dated 30.11.2022. However, cross-examination revealed significant inconsistencies: the petitioner never mentioned this promissory note in his initial statement or counter-claim, contradicting his credibility. The court found the petitioner's testimony unreliable on material facts and concluded that he failed to establish his claim with proper documentary evidence or consistent statements. The case proceeded with examination of witnesses and recording of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1969. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Case 106/2022: Murugesan vs A.Narayanasamy In this civil suit heard on 07.06.2024, the court examined testimony regarding a loan dispute. The petitioner (Murugesan), a village administrative officer, claimed to have borrowed ₹50,000 from respondent A. Narayanasamy and provided a promissory note dated 30.11.2022. However, cross-examination revealed significant inconsistencies: the petitioner never mentioned this promissory note in his initial statement or counter-claim, contradicting his credibility. The court found the petitioner's testimony unreliable on material facts and concluded that he failed to establish his claim with proper documentary evidence or consistent statements. The case proceeded with examination of witnesses and recording of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1969. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts