Skip to content
Try for free
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.
See full guide →

E.Valarmathi Vs Elangovan

E.Valarmathi vs Elangovan

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided Feb 26, 2026
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1422572

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai Orders High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
CRP/1031/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

E.Valarmathi

Respondent

Elangovan

Excerpt

.....of 2024 on the file of the district munsif cum judicial magistrate court at kurinjipadi in os.no.738 of 1991 on the file of the ld additional district munsif, cuddalore for petitioner(s): m/s.r.karthikeyanorderheard mr.r.karthikeyan, learned counsel for the petitioner.2. the present revision is a challenge to the impugned order dated02.01.2026, in and by which, ea.no.37 of 2025 and ea.no.38 of 2025 were allowed and time for delivery bata was extended by three working days. the petitioner does not challenge the order passed after enquiry allowing the e.p. on 18.07.2025. consequent upon which, delivery was ordered. therefore, i do not see any merit in the challenge to the order dated 02.01.2026. in fact, even the orders of police side and break open ea.nos.37 and 38 of 2025 are also not challenged. challenge is to the docket order passed on the very same day ordering delivery.3. i find that the delivery was not ordered for the first time on 02.01.2026,but even on 18.07.2025, therefore, the proper remedy available to the petitioner was to challenge the order dated 18.07.2025. i do not see any merit in the page2 of 4 revision. the civil revision petition is dismissed. however, petitioner is given liberty to challenge the order dated 18.07.2025. no costs. consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. index: yes/nospeaking/non-speaking orderneutral citation: yes/no pvs to1. district munsif cum judicial magistrate court at kurinjipadi2. additional district munsif, cuddalore page3 of 4p.b.balaji, j.pvs page4 of 4

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 26-02-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI and CMP.No.5545 of 2026 E.Valarmathi ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1.Elangovan Ramanujam Pillai (Died) 2.Kandamani Ammal Kuppusamy (Died) 3.Neelavathiammal 4.Velayutham Pillai 5.Namachivaya Pillai 6.Manickavalli 7.Umadevi 8.Soundravalli 9.Mani 10.Dharabudharan ..Respondent(s) Page1 of 4 CRP filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the attachment docket order dated 02.01.2026 made in EP.39 of 2024 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court at Kurinjipadi in OS.No.738 of 1991 on the file of the Ld Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore For Petitioner(s): M/s.R.Karthikeyan

ORDER

Heard Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The present revision is a challenge to the impugned order dated

02.01.2026, in and by which, EA.No.37 of 2025 and EA.No.38 of 2025 were allowed and time for delivery bata was extended by three working days. The petitioner does not challenge the order passed after enquiry allowing the E.P. on 18.07.2025. Consequent upon which, delivery was ordered. Therefore, I do not see any merit in the challenge to the order dated 02.01.2026. In fact, even the orders of Police side and break open EA.Nos.37 and 38 of 2025 are also not challenged. Challenge is to the docket order passed on the very same day ordering delivery.

3. I find that the delivery was not ordered for the first time on 02.01.2026,

but even on 18.07.2025, therefore, the proper remedy available to the petitioner was to challenge the order dated 18.07.2025. I do not see any merit in the Page2 of 4 revision. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, petitioner is given liberty to challenge the order dated 18.07.2025. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Index: Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order

Neutral Citation: Yes/No PVS To

1. District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court at Kurinjipadi

2. Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore Page3 of 4

P.B.BALAJI, J.

PVS Page4 of 4

Continue Your Research

Same Court & Year Chennai Orders · 2026 Same Parties E.Valarmathi vs Elangovan Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice P.B. Balaji

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales