Balachandran vs Ramanan and 3 others Advocate - T.A. Philip — 100546/2015
Case under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 26. Status: Verify and report. Next hearing: 16th June 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLKM130007162015
Next Hearing
16th June 2026
Filing Number
616/2015
Filing Date
25-11-2015
Registration No
100546/2015
Registration Date
25-11-2015
Court
Munsiff Court, Punalur
Judge
1-Munsiff, Punalur
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Balachandran
Adv. S.R. Amrit
Respondent(s)
Ramanan and 3 others Advocate - T.A. Philip
Omana
Adv. T.A. Philip
Archana
Ambady
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Munsiff, Punalur
Verify and report
Verify and report
Appearance Of Parties
For commission report
For commission report
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 31-03-2026 | Verify and report |
| 13-03-2026 | Verify and report |
| 02-03-2026 | Appearance Of Parties |
| 21-02-2026 | For commission report |
| 16-01-2026 | For commission report |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: OS 546/2015 - Balachandran v. Ramanan & Others Outcome: Both applications (IA 1/2023 and IA 4/2025) are allowed. The survey commission report filed on 20.10.2022 is remitted back to the advocate commissioner and surveyor for correction and re-filing after proper survey and property demarcation, with no order as to costs. Key Issues: The court found the commission report inadmissible due to multiple defects: measurement discrepancies between tables and plans, failure to show total property extent, missing boundary demarcations despite the suit seeking boundary fixation, improper pathway survey, and failure to account for property lost to road development on the southern side. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: OS 546/2015 - Balachandran v. Ramanan & Others Outcome: Both applications (IA 1/2023 and IA 4/2025) are allowed. The survey commission report filed on 20.10.2022 is remitted back to the advocate commissioner and surveyor for correction and re-filing after proper survey and property demarcation, with no order as to costs. Key Issues: The court found the commission report inadmissible due to multiple defects: measurement discrepancies between tables and plans, failure to show total property extent, missing boundary demarcations despite the suit seeking boundary fixation, improper pathway survey, and failure to account for property lost to road development on the southern side. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts