Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J
Mallika W/o. Kariyaraman – Appellant
Versus
Periyasamy S/o. Lakshmanan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging trial court's dismissal of applications. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. claim for property division and interim relief. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court directed appointment of advocate commissioner. (Para 5) |
COMMON ORDER
Challenging the impugned orders passed in I.A.Nos.3 and 2 of 2024 in O.S.No.23 of 2024 by the learned Additional District Judge, Attur, the Revision Petitioner/plaintiff preferred this Civil Revision Petition.
2. Since the relief is claimed challenging the order passed by the trial judge, notice to the respondents is dispensed with.
3. Before the trial court, the Revision Petitioner/plaintiff filed two applications seeking for appointment of advocate commissioner and seeking for interim injunction. For that, the respondents have also not raised objections. Inspite of that, both the applications were dismissed. Aggrieved over that, the Revision Petitioner/plaintiff preferred these Civil Revision Petitions.
4. The learned counsel for Revision Petitioner would submit that he approached the court for the relief of declaration and other consequential relief. He would submit that since the defendants have caused interference, he had filed the suit. He would submit that t
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
