A. Maria Leela vs Praveen Suhila and 2 other Advocate - Thiru.D.Uclid Einstin — 19/2018
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O7R1sec26. Status: IA Pending. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit (Title)
CNR: TNTL080000212018
Next Hearing
15th June 2026
Filing Number
21/2018
Filing Date
15-02-2018
Registration No
19/2018
Registration Date
16-02-2018
Court
Principal District Munsif Court, Vallioor
Judge
3-Additional District Munsif
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
A. Maria Leela
Adv. Thiru. M. Ramanarayana Perumal
Respondent(s)
Praveen Suhila and 2 other Advocate - Thiru.D.Uclid Einstin
Saraswathi
Benet
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Additional District Munsif
IA Pending
IA Pending
IA Pending
IA Pending
IA Pending
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-06-2026 | IA Pending |
| 15-04-2026 | IA Pending |
| 24-03-2026 | IA Pending |
| 14-03-2026 | IA Pending |
| 09-03-2026 | IA Pending |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: I.A.No.5/2025 in O.S.No.19/2018 Outcome: Petition ALLOWED Benat (3rd defendant/petitioner) successfully challenged the Advocate Commissioner's report filed in the original suit between A. Maria Leela (plaintiff) and others. The Additional District Munsif found the Commissioner's report on property survey (Survey No. 1235/4A1 and 1235/4A2) to be vague, incomplete, and lacking proper correlation between documentary title, revenue records, and physical measurements. The court determined the report failed to clearly demarcate property boundaries and extents, and thus lacked sufficient clarity to assist in resolving the dispute. The Commissioner's report was accordingly scrapped/set aside with no costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: I.A.No.5/2025 in O.S.No.19/2018 Outcome: Petition ALLOWED Benat (3rd defendant/petitioner) successfully challenged the Advocate Commissioner's report filed in the original suit between A. Maria Leela (plaintiff) and others. The Additional District Munsif found the Commissioner's report on property survey (Survey No. 1235/4A1 and 1235/4A2) to be vague, incomplete, and lacking proper correlation between documentary title, revenue records, and physical measurements. The court determined the report failed to clearly demarcate property boundaries and extents, and thus lacked sufficient clarity to assist in resolving the dispute. The Commissioner's report was accordingly scrapped/set aside with no costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts