Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J
V.Kalaiselvan – Appellant
Versus
P.Arumugam – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenges trial court dismissal of commissioner reissue application. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. rival contentions on timeliness post-evidence closure. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. revisitation allowed due to post-acquisition changes in property features. (Para 5 , 6) |
ORDER
Challenging the impugned order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in O.S.No.391 of 2022 by the learned Sub-Judge, Katpadi, Vellore District, the Revision Petitioners/defendants preferred this Civil Revision Petition.
2. Before the trial court, the Revision Petitioners filed an application seeking to reissue the warrant to the advocate commissioner to note down the physical features, since it was changed after the acquisition of land by the National Highways and formation of new road. But, the trial court failed to grant permission and erroneously dismissed the application. Aggrieved over that, they have preferred this Civil Revision Petition.
3. The learned counsel for revision petitioners would submit that at the earlier occasion, the advocate commissioner was appointed in I.A.No. 1 of 2021 and the report was also filed in the year 2023. Thereafter, the trial has begun. Subsequently, there was change in circu
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
