Ramesh and 2 others vs The Superintendent Engineer and 6 others Advocate - Government Pleader — 85/2017
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Disposed: Contested--Partially Allowed on 08th April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNKK170003562019
Filing Number
85/2017
Filing Date
15-11-2017
Registration No
85/2017
Registration Date
15-11-2017
Court
District Munsif Court, Eraniel
Judge
1-District Munsif
Decision Date
08th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Partially Allowed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ramesh and 2 others
Adv. N. CHANDRA SEKAR
Rajesh
Adv. N. CHANDRA SEKAR
Packiabai
Adv. N. CHANDRA SEKAR
Respondent(s)
The Superintendent Engineer and 6 others Advocate - Government Pleader
The Junior Engineer
Adv. Government Pleader
The Asst Executive Engineer
Adv. Government Pleader
The Executive Officer, Nullivilai Town Panchayat at Kandanvilai,
Adv. Government Pleader
E. Krishnan
Adv. Ex-parte
Kasthuri
Adv. Exparte
The Chairman, Tamilnadu generation and Distribution corporation Ltd, Chennai.
Adv. Government Pleader
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif
Disposed
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 02-04-2026 | Judgement |
| 01-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 25-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 24-03-2026 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
The District Munsif court in Eraniel (Original Suit No. 85/2017, dated 03.03.2026) rejected the cross-examination testimony of defendant witness Anand regarding survey records 530/1 and 530/2, finding his statements about land demarcation inconsistent and unreliable. The court determined that the survey measurements were properly recorded by the authorized surveyor and did not accept the witness's contradictory claims about which survey plots contained the disputed land. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The District Munsif court in Eraniel (Original Suit No. 85/2017, dated 03.03.2026) rejected the cross-examination testimony of defendant witness Anand regarding survey records 530/1 and 530/2, finding his statements about land demarcation inconsistent and unreliable. The court determined that the survey measurements were properly recorded by the authorized surveyor and did not accept the witness's contradictory claims about which survey plots contained the disputed land. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts