Kannan vs Chandrasekaran — 96/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 25(b), 25(d). Disposed: Uncontested--Dismissed on 24th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNVR140001162025
Filing Number
162/2025
Filing Date
06-Nov-2025
Registration No
96/2025
Registration Date
06-Nov-2025
Court
Principal District Munisf Court, Aruppukottai
Judge
3-Additional District Munsif
Decision Date
24-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Dismissed
Last updated 01-Jul-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Kannan
Adv. Karkiselvam B
-
2.Packiyalakshmi
-
3.Duraipandi
-
4.Vadivel
-
5.Vijayamani
-
6.Packiyalakshmi
-
7.Kavitha
-
8.Hema
Respondent(s)
-
1.Chandrasekaran
-
2.Subburaj
-
3.Sub Registrar
-
4.The District Collector
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
24-Mar-2026
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
The Additional District Court, Arupukkottai dismissed Civil Case 96/2025 for default on March 24, 2026, after the plaintiffs failed to serve the first defendant despite sufficient opportunities and a conditional no-further-action order. The court also passed ancillary orders declaring certain property documents (registered in 2002 and 2003) void and restrained the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful enjoyment of the disputed property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
24-Mar-2026
Disposed
Additional District Munsif
-
13-Mar-2026
Steps
Additional District Munsif
-
11-Mar-2026
Written Statement
Additional District Munsif
-
03-Mar-2026
Written Statement
Additional District Munsif
-
16-Feb-2026
Steps
Additional District Munsif
-
10-Feb-2026
Steps
Additional District Munsif
-
28-Jan-2026
Steps
Additional District Munsif
-
05-Jan-2026
Steps
Additional District Munsif
-
08-Dec-2025
Steps
Additional District Munsif
-
06-Nov-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
06-Nov-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 96/2025
The Additional District Court, Arupukkottai dismissed Civil Case 96/2025 for default on March 24, 2026, after the plaintiffs failed to serve the first defendant despite sufficient opportunities and a conditional no-further-action order. The court also passed ancillary orders declaring certain property documents (registered in 2002 and 2003) void and restrained the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful enjoyment of the disputed property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts