P.Ravichandran M/S.S. Arun Karthik Mohan, Suhrith parthasarathy vs K.Latha, — A/5943/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Sec-39. Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: HCMA012863062025

Filing Number

A/191129/2025

Filing Date

19-Nov-2025

Registration No

A/5943/2025

Registration Date

26-Nov-2025

Judge

Master

Coram

Master

Bench Type

Single Bench

Judicial Branch

ORIGINALSECTION

Last updated 21-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section Sec-39

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.P.Ravichandran M/S.S. Arun Karthik Mohan, Suhrith parthasarathy

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.K.Latha,

  2. 2.K.Ramya,

  3. 3.K.Sangeetha,

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 19-Jun-2026

    MasterView PDF

    Case Summary: A/5943/2025 The court allowed Application 5943/2025, reducing the property's upset price from Rs.2,07,00,000 to Rs.1,86,30,000 after two failed auction attempts. Application 5945/2025 was partially allowed, permitting the decree holder to participate in the auction and bid without the standard 25% deposit requirement, though the prayer for setting off the decretal amount against purchase money was deferred for later consideration after successful bidding. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 19-Jun-2026

    = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

    Master

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    For Arguments

    Master

  5. 27-Feb-2026

    For Arguments

    Master

  6. 20-Jan-2026

    For Arguments

    Master

  7. 07-Jan-2026

    Execution Petitions

    Master

  8. 12-Dec-2025

    Execution Petitions

    Master

  9. 01-Dec-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  10. 19-Nov-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. A/5943/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: A/5943/2025 The court allowed Application 5943/2025, reducing the property's upset price from Rs.2,07,00,000 to Rs.1,86,30,000 after two failed auction attempts. Application 5945/2025 was partially allowed, permitting the decree holder to participate in the auction and bid without the standard 25% deposit requirement, though the prayer for setting off the decretal amount against purchase money was deferred for later consideration after successful bidding. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case