Saghayaraj vs Amalanathan — 13/2022

Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section 26. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 04th June 2026.

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNKP100001392022

Evidence

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

CodeofCivilProcedure Section 26

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

15-04-2026

Evidence

02-04-2026

Orders

12-03-2026

Evidence

26-02-2026

Evidence

12-02-2026

Evidence

Interim Orders

15-04-2026
IA

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Uthiramerur All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case