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
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
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
IA Pending
IA Pending
IA Pending
IA Pending
IA Pending
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts