Skip to content
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.

Pushparani vs Palanisamy

Pushparani vs Palanisamy

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Mar 17, 2026
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1480800

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

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

Citation
Court
Chennai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
CMP/21932/2024

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Pushparani

Respondent

Palanisamy

Excerpt

in the high court of judicature at madrasdated: 17.03.2026coramthe honourable mr.justice r. sakthivel in ---- 1.pushparani w/o.late.sengottaian 2.shanmugam 3.jagadambal d/o.late.sengottaian ...petitioners/appellantsversus1.palanisamy 2.poongodi d/o.late.sengottaian ...respondents 1&2/respondents 1&2 pavathal (died) 3.kandasamy s/o.senniappa gounder 4.k.velusamy s/o.kandasamy 5.s.k.muthusamy s/o.kandasamy ...respondents 3 to 5/respondents 3 to 5 respondents 3 to 5 are the legal representatives of the deceased 3rd respondent, viz., pavathal. prayer: civil miscellaneous petition filed under section 152 of the code of civil procedure, 1908, praying to amend the year of original suit number, wherever stated in the grounds of appeal in s.a.no. 677 of 2007 on the file of this court and also in the judgment and decree in a.s.no. 64 of 2006 passed by the learned principal district judge of erode district at erode. for petitioners : mr.m.karthik for mr.i.c.vasudevan for rr 1 and 2 : ms.saranya for mrs.v.srimathi ---ordermr.m.karthik, representing mr.i.c.vasudevan, counsel on record for the petitioners/appellants and ms.saranya, representing mrs.v.srimathi, counsel on record for the respondent nos.1 and 2 are before this court. 2.representing counsel for the petitioners/appellants seeks to rectify the typographical error while preparing the memorandum of grounds of appeal. 3.counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 has no objection in allowing this petition. 4.having satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of this petition, this civil miscellaneous petition is allowed. no costs. msm to 1.the principal district judge of erode district at erode. 2.the section officer, high court, madras. r.sakthivel, j msm in

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17.03.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVEL in ---- 1.Pushparani W/o.Late.Sengottaian 2.Shanmugam 3.Jagadambal D/o.Late.Sengottaian ...Petitioners/Appellants

Versus

1.Palanisamy 2.Poongodi D/o.Late.Sengottaian ...Respondents 1&2/Respondents 1&2 Pavathal (Died) 3.Kandasamy S/o.Senniappa Gounder 4.K.Velusamy S/o.Kandasamy 5.S.K.Muthusamy S/o.Kandasamy ...Respondents 3 to 5/Respondents 3 to 5 Respondents 3 to 5 are the Legal Representatives of the deceased 3rd Respondent, viz., Pavathal. Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to amend the year of Original Suit Number, wherever stated in the Grounds of Appeal in S.A.No. 677 of 2007 on the file of this Court and also in the Judgment and Decree in A.S.No. 64 of 2006 passed by the learned Principal District Judge of Erode District at Erode. For Petitioners : Mr.M.Karthik For Mr.I.C.Vasudevan For RR 1 and 2 : Ms.Saranya For Mrs.V.Srimathi ---

ORDER

Mr.M.Karthik, representing Mr.I.C.Vasudevan, Counsel on record for the petitioners/appellants and Ms.Saranya, representing Mrs.V.Srimathi, Counsel on record for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court. 2.Representing Counsel for the petitioners/appellants seeks to rectify the typographical error while preparing the Memorandum of Grounds of Appeal. 3.Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 has no objection in allowing this petition. 4.Having satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of this petition, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. No costs. MSM To 1.The Principal District Judge of Erode District at Erode. 2.The Section Officer, High Court, Madras. R.SAKTHIVEL, J MSM in

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial