SIVAKUMAR vs SARAVANAN Advocate - JAGADEESAN M V — 144/2019
Case under Suits Valuation Act Section 27(c). Status: Trial. Next hearing: 03rd June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNVL100002332019
Next Hearing
03rd June 2026
Filing Number
277/2019
Filing Date
31-07-2019
Registration No
144/2019
Registration Date
31-07-2019
Court
District Munsif Court, Gudiyatham
Judge
2-District Munsif, Gudiyatham
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SIVAKUMAR
Adv. RAMACHANDRAN G
Respondent(s)
SARAVANAN Advocate - JAGADEESAN M V
SARANKUMAR
Adv. JAGADEESAN MV
SRINATH
Adv. JAGADEESAN MV
BABU
SRINIVASAN
Adv. SANTHA KUMAR S
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District Munsif, Gudiyatham
Trial
Trial
Trial
Trial
Trial
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 15-04-2026 | Trial |
| 13-03-2026 | Trial |
| 27-02-2026 | Trial |
| 05-02-2026 | Trial |
| 28-01-2026 | Trial |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: OS 144/2019 (IA 05/2024) The District Munsif Court allowed the defendants' petition to set aside the previous advocate commissioner's report and appoint a new commissioner. The court found the earlier commissioner failed to comply with court directions, made unnecessary biased findings against the petitioners' claim of an existing cart way through government land, omitted the surveyor's plan, and filed computerized sketches dated months after the inspection, creating doubt about report authenticity. A new advocate commissioner was appointed to re-inspect the property and file a fresh report within two months, with petitioners required to deposit Rs. 7,000 as commissioner fees. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: OS 144/2019 (IA 05/2024) The District Munsif Court allowed the defendants' petition to set aside the previous advocate commissioner's report and appoint a new commissioner. The court found the earlier commissioner failed to comply with court directions, made unnecessary biased findings against the petitioners' claim of an existing cart way through government land, omitted the surveyor's plan, and filed computerized sketches dated months after the inspection, creating doubt about report authenticity. A new advocate commissioner was appointed to re-inspect the property and file a fresh report within two months, with petitioners required to deposit Rs. 7,000 as commissioner fees. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts