B.Ravikumar R.Vijayaraghaven, K.Dineshnarayan,T.A.Preetha,V.R.Ramesh,S.Annakkodi vs Augustin Babu — CMP/8061/2026

Case under U/o 13 Rule 9 of Cpc and U/s 151 of Cpc Section 1. Disposed: --ORDERED on 10th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCMA010269132026

Filing Number

CMP/19852/2026

Filing Date

03-Feb-2026

Registration No

CMP/8061/2026

Registration Date

25-Mar-2026

Judge

Honourable Mrs.Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi

Coram

Honourable Mrs.Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi

Bench Type

Single Bench

Judicial Branch

JUDICIALSECTION

Decision Date

10-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ORDERED

Last updated 14-May-2026

Acts & Sections

U/o 13 Rule 9 of Cpc and U/s 151 of Cpc Section 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.B.Ravikumar R.Vijayaraghaven, K.Dineshnarayan,T.A.Preetha,V.R.Ramesh,S.Annakkodi

  2. 2.Le Royal Constructions (P) Ltd.,

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Augustin Babu

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    Honourable Mrs.Justice K. Govindarajan ThilakavadiView PDF

    Summary The Madras High Court granted the petitioners' request to retrieve the original sale deed dated 29.08.2000 from court records by substituting it with a certified copy. The court found that since the property dispute concerns only 468 sq. ft. of the total land, and the respondent does not challenge the petitioners' title to the remaining 4545 sq. ft., releasing the original document would not prejudice the ongoing second appeal while allowing the petitioners to proceed with development on the undisputed portion. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Apr-2026

    Miscellaneous Petitions

    Honourable Mrs.Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi

  4. 03-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CMP/8061/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Madras High Court granted the petitioners' request to retrieve the original sale deed dated 29.08.2000 from court records by substituting it with a certified copy. The court found that since the property dispute concerns only 468 sq. ft. of the total land, and the respondent does not challenge the petitioners' title to the remaining 4545 sq. ft., releasing the original document would not prejudice the ongoing second appeal while allowing the petitioners to proceed with development on the undisputed portion. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case