Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Jothiraman, J
Govindaraj – Appellant
Versus
Subramaniyam – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the suit and the application regarding the advocate commissioner. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments raised by the revision petitioners regarding the need for re-evaluation. (Para 5) |
| 3. the court's observations on the necessity of further evidence and the established burden of proof. (Para 7) |
O R D E R
The unsuccessful defendants 2 and 3 have preferred the present civil revision petition.
2. The suit in O.S.No.236 of 2012 is filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants or any other persons acting on their behalf from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
3. The defendants have filed their written statement. Necessary issues were framed. On the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined. The 3rd defendant was examined as D.W1 and documents were marked. The defendants' side evidence was closed and the case is posted for arguments. At this stage, defendants 2 and 3 have filed an application in I.A.No.3 of 2025 in I.A.No.505 of 2017 in O.S.No.236 of 2012 under Order 26 Rule 9 and Section 151 C.P,C seeking a direction to the Advocate Commissioner to revisit the suit schedule property once again al
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
