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

Case disposed

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

CodeofCivilProcedure Section Sec104,106

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

10-03-2026

Disposed

09-03-2026

Orders

07-03-2026

Orders

05-03-2026

Orders

03-03-2026

Orders

Final Orders / Judgements

10-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Sub Court, Perundurai All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case