Saghayaraj vs Amalanathan — 13/2022
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section 26. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 04th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNKP100001392022
Next Hearing
04th June 2026
Filing Number
48/2022
Filing Date
30-03-2022
Registration No
13/2022
Registration Date
04-04-2022
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Uthiramerur
Judge
1-District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Saghayaraj
Adv. K.Shanmugasundaram
Respondent(s)
Amalanathan
Shanthi
Francis
Antony
George
Pannerselvam
Suman
Surya
Rani
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
Evidence
Orders
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 15-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 02-04-2026 | Orders |
| 12-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 26-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 12-02-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: OS 13/2022 Saghayaraj v. Amalanathan & Others – Order dated 15 April 2026 Outcome: The petition filed by Saghayaraj (petitioner) is dismissed. The court rejected the interim application seeking appointment of a court commissioner to survey and measure the disputed property and prepare a measurement report. The court found that the petitioner failed to establish through revenue department documents or oral testimony that he possessed the property, and that allowing such a survey would improperly enable the petitioner to gather evidence through the court commissioner rather than proving his own case. The court held that in permanent injunction cases, appointing a commissioner for evidence collection is inappropriate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: OS 13/2022 Saghayaraj v. Amalanathan & Others – Order dated 15 April 2026 Outcome: The petition filed by Saghayaraj (petitioner) is dismissed. The court rejected the interim application seeking appointment of a court commissioner to survey and measure the disputed property and prepare a measurement report. The court found that the petitioner failed to establish through revenue department documents or oral testimony that he possessed the property, and that allowing such a survey would improperly enable the petitioner to gather evidence through the court commissioner rather than proving his own case. The court held that in permanent injunction cases, appointing a commissioner for evidence collection is inappropriate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts