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

2021 Supreme(Mad) 120

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
Veerappan – Appellant
Versus
Thangaraj – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S. Sounthar.
For the Respondent: K. Govi Ganesan.

JUDGMENT :

S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of CPC, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 19.03.2013 made in A.S. No. 57 of 2011 on the file of the Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai, remanding the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2011 made in O.S. No. 375 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Mayiladuthurai.

1. The judgment and decree dated 19.03.2013 passed in A.S. No. 57 of 2011 is under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. The defendant is the appellant in the present appeal. The respondent instituted the suit for recovery of possession. The suit was dismissed against which the respondent/plaintiff filed first appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent filed an interlocutory application to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to survey the property and submit a report.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant mainly contended that the said exercise was already done by the trial Court by affording opportunity to all the parties to the original suit. The Advocate Commissioner was appointed, who in turn submitted a report and the report was considered by the trial Cou

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