AYYASAMY vs KANNIMARIYAL Advocate - P Sankar kumar — 1/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section ORDER7RULE1. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 02nd June 2026.
COS - Commercial Original Suit
CNR: TNVR230031392024
e-Filing Number
11-08-2024
Filing Number
1514/2024
Filing Date
12-Aug-2024
Registration No
1/2024
Registration Date
14-Aug-2024
Court
Sub Court, Rajapalayam
Judge
3-Sub Court,Rajapalayam
Decision Date
02-Jun-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Last updated 01-Jul-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.AYYASAMY
Adv. UmaPathy S
Respondent(s)
-
1.KANNIMARIYAL Advocate - P Sankar kumar
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
02-Jun-2026
Disposed
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
07-Apr-2026
Judgement
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
24-Mar-2026
Arguments
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
12-Mar-2026
Arguments
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
05-Mar-2026
Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF
-
05-Mar-2026
Part Heard
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
18-Feb-2026
Part Heard
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
03-Feb-2026
Part Heard
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
06-Jan-2026
Part Heard
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
11-Dec-2025
Part Heard
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
09-Dec-2025
Part Heard
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
27-Nov-2025
Part Heard
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
19-Nov-2025
Evidence
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
17-Nov-2025
Evidence
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
11-Nov-2025
Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF
Summary of Case 1/2024 - Ayyasamy v. Kannimariyal The court examined the testimony of a property valuator (Prabakar) regarding his valuation report (Exhibit 5) of a property in Thava on 23.03.2023. During cross-examination, the valuator admitted significant deficiencies in his assessment: he lacked proper government licensure credentials, did not examine soil bearing capacity for foundation design, failed to conduct a detailed technical analysis of construction methods, and did not provide itemized costs of materials and labor. Critically, he performed the valuation unilaterally at the plaintiff's request without the defendant's presence or knowledge, relying solely on blueprints rather than comprehensive site inspection, and did not disclose approximately ₹10 lakh worth of remaining construction materials. The court found the valuator's report legally deficient and incapable of binding the defendant, as it lacked objectivity and technical rigor required for such expert assessments. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
11-Nov-2025
Evidence
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
06-Nov-2025
Evidence
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
30-Oct-2025
Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF
-
30-Oct-2025
Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF
-
30-Oct-2025
Evidence
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
13-Oct-2025
Evidence
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
07-Oct-2025
Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF
-
07-Oct-2025
Evidence
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
11-Sep-2025
Evidence
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
03-Sep-2025
For further Proceedings
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
01-Aug-2025
Trial
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
11-Jun-2025
Trial
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
14-Feb-2025
Issues
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
20-Dec-2024
For further Proceedings
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
21-Oct-2024
Written Statement
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
21-Sep-2024
Written Statement
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
17-Sep-2024
Issue of Service
-
14-Aug-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
12-Aug-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 1/2024
Summary of Case 1/2024 - Ayyasamy v. Kannimariyal The court examined the testimony of a property valuator (Prabakar) regarding his valuation report (Exhibit 5) of a property in Thava on 23.03.2023. During cross-examination, the valuator admitted significant deficiencies in his assessment: he lacked proper government licensure credentials, did not examine soil bearing capacity for foundation design, failed to conduct a detailed technical analysis of construction methods, and did not provide itemized costs of materials and labor. Critically, he performed the valuation unilaterally at the plaintiff's request without the defendant's presence or knowledge, relying solely on blueprints rather than comprehensive site inspection, and did not disclose approximately ₹10 lakh worth of remaining construction materials. The court found the valuator's report legally deficient and incapable of binding the defendant, as it lacked objectivity and technical rigor required for such expert assessments. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts