M.Sundari vs Illayaraja Advocate - S. Karthick kumar — 135/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 27(c). Status: Lok Adalat. Next hearing: 13th June 2026.

Lok Adalat Next hearing 13-Jun-2026 this date has passed

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNMD190001922024

Filing Number

195/2024

Filing Date

13-Nov-2024

Registration No

135/2024

Registration Date

13-Nov-2024

Court

District Munsif Court, Vadipatti

Judge

1-District Munsif, Vadipatti.

Last updated 23-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 27(c)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M.Sundari

    Adv. Tr.M. Gogulnath

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Illayaraja Advocate - S. Karthick kumar

Case History

  1. 13-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 06-Apr-2026

    Lok Adalat

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    Copy of Judgment/OrderView PDF

    Summary: The District Munsif Court of Vadipatti dismissed the defendant's petition filed under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC seeking appointment of an advocate commissioner to inspect, measure, and assess possession of the disputed property. The court held that an advocate commissioner cannot be appointed to determine possession in a permanent injunction suit, as such determination must be established through oral and documentary evidence, citing the High Court's precedent in S. Anand v. A. Jeyabalan (2020 (1) CTC 182). The petition was dismissed with no costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Issues

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  5. 12-Mar-2026

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  6. 02-Mar-2026

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  7. 12-Feb-2026

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  8. 22-Jan-2026

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  9. 05-Jan-2026

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  10. 01-Dec-2025

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  11. 17-Nov-2025

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  12. 13-Nov-2025

    Issues

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  13. 31-Oct-2025

    Copy of Judgment/OrderView PDF

  14. 31-Oct-2025

    Trial

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  15. 25-Oct-2025

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  16. 14-Oct-2025

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  17. 07-Oct-2025

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  18. 20-Sep-2025

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  19. 11-Sep-2025

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  20. 14-Aug-2025

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  21. 24-Jul-2025

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  22. 25-Jun-2025

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  23. 09-Apr-2025

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  24. 05-Mar-2025

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  25. 05-Feb-2025

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  26. 08-Jan-2025

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  27. 11-Dec-2024

    IA Pending

    District Munsif, Vadipatti.

  28. 13-Nov-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  29. 13-Nov-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 135/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The District Munsif Court of Vadipatti dismissed the defendant's petition filed under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC seeking appointment of an advocate commissioner to inspect, measure, and assess possession of the disputed property. The court held that an advocate commissioner cannot be appointed to determine possession in a permanent injunction suit, as such determination must be established through oral and documentary evidence, citing the High Court's precedent in S. Anand v. A. Jeyabalan (2020 (1) CTC 182). The petition was dismissed with no costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case