R.Saraswathi vs K.Palanisamy and 2 others Advocate - M.Senthilkumar — 2/2025
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section Sec104,106. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 10th March 2026.
CMA - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
CNR: TNED110005062025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
524/2025
Filing Date
13-10-2025
Registration No
2/2025
Registration Date
17-10-2025
Court
Sub Court, Perundurai
Judge
1-Subordinate Judge
Decision Date
10th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
R.Saraswathi
Adv. SENTHIL KUMAR.D
Respondent(s)
K.Palanisamy and 2 others Advocate - M.Senthilkumar
K.Thangamuthu
K.Palanisamy
Adv. Subramaniam. C
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Subordinate Judge
Disposed
Orders
Orders
Orders
Orders
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | Orders | |
| 07-03-2026 | Orders | |
| 05-03-2026 | Orders | |
| 03-03-2026 | Orders |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Subordinate Court of Perundurai allowed R. Saraswathi's appeal and set aside the Trial Court's dismissal of her application for advocate commissioner appointment. The court held that the Trial Court erred in rejecting the application merely as evidence collection; noting physical features of disputed agricultural property boundaries is essential to resolve encroachment allegations when defendants deny the existence of boundary markers. The court directed appointment of an advocate commissioner within two weeks to inspect the property and file a report within one month to assist in fairly deciding the permanent injunction suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Subordinate Court of Perundurai allowed R. Saraswathi's appeal and set aside the Trial Court's dismissal of her application for advocate commissioner appointment. The court held that the Trial Court erred in rejecting the application merely as evidence collection; noting physical features of disputed agricultural property boundaries is essential to resolve encroachment allegations when defendants deny the existence of boundary markers. The court directed appointment of an advocate commissioner within two weeks to inspect the property and file a report within one month to assist in fairly deciding the permanent injunction suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts