The Madras High Court allowed an application to receive documents mentioned in an annexure filed by the third defendant, subject to proof and relevancy.
Application allowed to receive documents, subject to proof and relevancy.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
A No. 4219 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09-09-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
A No. 4219 of 2025 in TOS No.48 of 2001
Chennai
Applicant(s)
Vs.
Chennai
2.S.P.Varalakshmi Chennai
3.S.P.Senthil
Chennai
4.T.C.Rajabathar
Chennai
5.Mythili Chennai
6.Thamilarasi Chennai
Respondent(s)
A No. 4219 of 2025
PRAYER: This application has been filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules, 1956, read with VIII Rule 1A(3) of the CPC, 1908.
For Applicant(s): Mr. K. Elango For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Mani for D1 Mr.S.Senthilnathan for D2, D4 & D5 Mr.S.Mohandas for D3
ORDER
This application has been filed to receive the documents mentioned in the
annexure filed by the third defendant in T.O.S.NO.48 of 2001.
of this application, this application is allowed subject to proof and relevancy.
09-09-2025
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No bkn
A No. 4219 of 2025
A No. 4219 of 2025
R.N.MANJULA J.
bkn
A No. 4219 of 2025 In TOS No.48 of 2001
09-09-2025
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to allow an application for receiving documents mentioned in an annexure filed by the third defendant.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kumaresan
S.P.Geetha and 5 others
R.N.MANJULA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
