Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J
J.Krishnakumar Mundhra – Appellant
Versus
J.Shyamdev Mundhra – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. defendant's application for commissioner dismissed by trial court. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments on partition deed boundaries and possession claims. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. partition plan sufficient, no commissioner needed. (Para 7) |
| 4. revision dismissed, suit expedited for senior citizens. (Para 8 , 9) |
ORDER
Challenging the impugned order passed in I.A.No. 6 of 2023 in OS.No.3295 of 2023, the defendant has filed the above revision.
2. Before the trial Court, the revision petitioner/defendant has filed an application in I.A.No.6 of 2023 under Order XXVI Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the property situated at Door No.32/12, Mahalakshmi Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. After hearing both sides, the trial Judge dismissed the application holding that the petition filed for appointment of Advocate Commissioner is devoid of merits. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant has filed the present revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant submits that though the suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for bare injunction, considering the boundaries of the properties, the revision petitioner/defendant wanted to elucidate the Co
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
