Shanmugapriya vs Murugan Advocate - C.Haribalakrishnan — 76/2022
Case under Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 25(d). Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 26th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNVR090002732022
Next Hearing
26th March 2026
Filing Number
219/2022
Filing Date
26-04-2022
Registration No
76/2022
Registration Date
26-04-2022
Court
Sub Court, Virudhunagar
Judge
2-Subordinate Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shanmugapriya
Adv. M.Theivakani
Respondent(s)
Murugan Advocate - C.Haribalakrishnan
Arunagiri
Adv. C.Haribalakrishnan
Apparsamy
Arunadevi
Adv. R. Senthil Prabhakar
Arumugam
Adv. R. Senthil Prabhakar
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Subordinate Judge
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 11-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 06-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 03-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 26-02-2026 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
Summary In OS No. 76/2022 dated 01.04.2025 before the Subordinate Court, Virudunagar, the testimony of Defendant's Witness-3 (DW3), Madakkumar, an Assistant Electrical Inspector, was recorded under Section 144 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The witness testified regarding two electrical connections (Nos. 228014263 and 228014391) registered in the name of Mahamayi Ammaal at Nadaiyaneeri village, both obtained on 12.06.1986. During cross-examination, the witness acknowledged lack of knowledge about case details and limitations in the evidentiary value of his testimony, as the court noted inconsistencies in his statement regarding the substantive matter of the dispute. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary In OS No. 76/2022 dated 01.04.2025 before the Subordinate Court, Virudunagar, the testimony of Defendant's Witness-3 (DW3), Madakkumar, an Assistant Electrical Inspector, was recorded under Section 144 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The witness testified regarding two electrical connections (Nos. 228014263 and 228014391) registered in the name of Mahamayi Ammaal at Nadaiyaneeri village, both obtained on 12.06.1986. During cross-examination, the witness acknowledged lack of knowledge about case details and limitations in the evidentiary value of his testimony, as the court noted inconsistencies in his statement regarding the substantive matter of the dispute. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts