Karthik Suryaraj vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Tamilnadu Water Resource Department — 15/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26, order VII, Rule 1. Status: IA Pending. Next hearing: 03rd June 2026.

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNKK040003062024

IA Pending

Next Hearing

03rd June 2026

Filing Number

382/2024

Filing Date

13-12-2024

Registration No

15/2025

Registration Date

31-01-2025

Court

Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari

Judge

8-II Additional District Munsif

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 26, order VII, Rule 1
Ia/2/2025 Classification : Others Section Karthik SuryarajState of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Tamilnadu Water Resource Department

Petitioner(s)

Karthik Suryaraj

Adv. Adv A.Lawrence Peter Shaw

Respondent(s)

State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Tamilnadu Water Resource Department

State of Tamilnadu Rep.by The District Collector,

J. Jayakumar

Hearing History

Judge: 8-II Additional District Munsif

20-04-2026

IA Pending

02-04-2026

IA Pending

01-04-2026

IA Pending

27-03-2026

IA Pending

11-03-2026

IA Pending

Interim Orders

25-08-2025
Copy of Judgment

Summary: The II Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil allowed the petition (I.A. No. 3 of 2025) and appointed Advocate Selvi X. Minisha as Advocate Commissioner to inspect the plaintiff's property and submit a detailed report within two months, with remuneration fixed at Rs. 8,000. The court found that an Advocate Commissioner's appointment was necessary for just and effective adjudication regarding the disputed compound wall allegedly encroached upon by the Water Resources Department. The case involves a property dispute concerning an irrigation canal encroachment marking on the plaintiff's compound wall. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The II Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil allowed the petition (I.A. No. 3 of 2025) and appointed Advocate Selvi X. Minisha as Advocate Commissioner to inspect the plaintiff's property and submit a detailed report within two months, with remuneration fixed at Rs. 8,000. The court found that an Advocate Commissioner's appointment was necessary for just and effective adjudication regarding the disputed compound wall allegedly encroached upon by the Water Resources Department. The case involves a property dispute concerning an irrigation canal encroachment marking on the plaintiff's compound wall. 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

Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case