AYYASAMY vs KANNIMARIYAL Advocate - P Sankar kumar — 1/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section ORDER7RULE1. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 02nd June 2026.

Case disposed

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

Code of Civil Procedure Section ORDER7RULE1
--- Section 2(1)(C)(VI)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.AYYASAMY

    Adv. UmaPathy S

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.KANNIMARIYAL Advocate - P Sankar kumar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 02-Jun-2026

    Disposed

    Sub Court,Rajapalayam

  3. 07-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Sub Court,Rajapalayam

  4. 24-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Sub Court,Rajapalayam

  5. 12-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Sub Court,Rajapalayam

  6. 05-Mar-2026

    Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF

  7. 05-Mar-2026

    Part Heard

    Sub Court,Rajapalayam

  8. 18-Feb-2026

    Part Heard

    Sub Court,Rajapalayam

  9. 03-Feb-2026

    Part Heard

    Sub Court,Rajapalayam

  10. 06-Jan-2026

    Part Heard

    Sub Court,Rajapalayam

  11. 11-Dec-2025

    Part Heard

    Sub Court,Rajapalayam

  12. 09-Dec-2025

    Part Heard

    Sub Court,Rajapalayam

  13. 27-Nov-2025

    Part Heard

    Sub Court,Rajapalayam

  14. 19-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Sub Court,Rajapalayam

  15. 17-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Sub Court,Rajapalayam

  16. 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.

  17. 11-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Sub Court,Rajapalayam

  18. 06-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Sub Court,Rajapalayam

  19. 30-Oct-2025

    Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF

  20. 30-Oct-2025

    Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF

  21. 30-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Sub Court,Rajapalayam

  22. 13-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Sub Court,Rajapalayam

  23. 07-Oct-2025

    Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF

  24. 07-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Sub Court,Rajapalayam

  25. 11-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Sub Court,Rajapalayam

  26. 03-Sep-2025

    For further Proceedings

    Sub Court,Rajapalayam

  27. 01-Aug-2025

    Trial

    Sub Court,Rajapalayam

  28. 11-Jun-2025

    Trial

    Sub Court,Rajapalayam

  29. 14-Feb-2025

    Issues

    Sub Court,Rajapalayam

  30. 20-Dec-2024

    For further Proceedings

    Sub Court,Rajapalayam

  31. 21-Oct-2024

    Written Statement

    Sub Court,Rajapalayam

  32. 21-Sep-2024

    Written Statement

    Sub Court,Rajapalayam

  33. 17-Sep-2024

    Issue of Service

  34. 14-Aug-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  35. 12-Aug-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1/2024

casestatus.in Summary

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

Search Another Case