M. Selvarani vs G. Nagaraj and 2 others — 142/2023

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 27(c). Status: Trial. Next hearing: 24th June 2026.

Trial Next hearing 24-Jun-2026 this date has passed

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNMD190001882023

Filing Number

206/2023

Filing Date

12-Dec-2023

Registration No

142/2023

Registration Date

12-Dec-2023

Court

District Munsif Court, Vadipatti

Judge

1-District Munsif, Vadipatti.

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 27(c)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M. Selvarani

    Adv. M. Thiyagarajan

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.G. Nagaraj and 2 others

  2. 2.Jothi

  3. 3.C. Velavendan @ Governor

Case History

  1. 24-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 28-Apr-2026

    Trial

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  3. 23-Mar-2026

    Trial

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  4. 16-Mar-2026

    Trial

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  5. 09-Feb-2026

    Trial

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  6. 13-Dec-2025

    Trial

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  7. 27-Oct-2025

    Lok Adalat

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  8. 13-Sep-2025

    Trial

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  9. 14-Aug-2025

    Lok Adalat

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  10. 04-Jul-2025

    Trial

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  11. 27-Jun-2025

    Trial

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  12. 22-Apr-2025

    Trial

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  13. 08-Mar-2025

    Trial

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  14. 13-Feb-2025

    Lok Adalat

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  15. 19-Dec-2024

    Trial

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  16. 24-Oct-2024

    Issues

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  17. 19-Sep-2024

    Copy of Judgment/OrderView PDF

  18. 19-Sep-2024

    Copy of Judgment/OrderView PDF

  19. 19-Sep-2024

    Copy of Judgment/OrderView PDF

  20. 19-Sep-2024

    Copy of Judgment/OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: Case 142/2023 Outcome: Petition dismissed, no costs. The District Munsif Court rejected M. Selvarani's petition seeking appointment of an advocate commissioner to inspect, measure, and survey disputed property to prove possession and identity. The court found that since property identification and extent were not in dispute, appointing a commissioner would amount to impermissible evidence collection. The plaintiff must instead prove possession through witness testimony in the underlying permanent injunction suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  21. 19-Sep-2024

    Issues

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  22. 05-Sep-2024

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  23. 02-Sep-2024

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  24. 22-Aug-2024

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  25. 08-Aug-2024

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  26. 10-Jul-2024

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  27. 12-Jun-2024

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  28. 12-Apr-2024

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  29. 03-Apr-2024

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  30. 27-Mar-2024

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  31. 25-Mar-2024

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  32. 13-Mar-2024

    Written Statement

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  33. 12-Mar-2024

    Written Statement

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  34. 05-Mar-2024

    Written Statement

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  35. 13-Feb-2024

    Written Statement

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  36. 08-Jan-2024

    Written Statement

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  37. 12-Dec-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  38. 12-Dec-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 142/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Case 142/2023 Outcome: Petition dismissed, no costs. The District Munsif Court rejected M. Selvarani's petition seeking appointment of an advocate commissioner to inspect, measure, and survey disputed property to prove possession and identity. The court found that since property identification and extent were not in dispute, appointing a commissioner would amount to impermissible evidence collection. The plaintiff must instead prove possession through witness testimony in the underlying permanent injunction suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case