SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(Mad) 1411

S.PALANIVELU
Murugesan – Appellant
Versus
Paramasivam & Others – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Petitioner:A. Ilango, Advocate. For the Respondents: ---

Judgment :-

The petitioner as plaintiff, had filed a suit in O.S.No.379 of 1994 before the District Munsif Court, Perambalur for Permanent Injunction. Since the said suit was dismissed on the ground that the existence of the pathway was not established, he preferred an appeal in A.S.No.32 of 1997 before the Sub Court, Ariyalur. Along with the appeal, he filed I.A.No.141 of 1997 for appointment an Advocate-Commissioner to inspect the suit property and note down the physical features of the suit property. Subsequent to the constitution of District Court, Perambalur, the said appeal was transferred to the District Court, Perambalur and re-numbered as I.A.No.117 of 2003 and A.S.No.144 of 2002. The issue to be decided in the case is with regard to the existence of a pathway.

2. The said application was allowed to be pending for about 7 years right from 1997. The petitioner herein did not take any steps for the disposal of the said application. However the matter was taken up and heard by the learned District Judge, Perambalur. On 110. 2003, after hearing both sides, the learned District Judge has dismissed the application, observing that the application has been pending for over seven





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top