You may also like...
C.R.P.NPD.Nos.1633 and 2035 of 2020 RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J. The defendant in the suit in O.S.No.25 of 2009 is the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.1633 of 2020 and the plaintiff in the suit is the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.2035 of 2020. I am not in agreement with the reasoning given by the learned Brother Justice Mr.R.Subramanian in the above cited decision as I find that the same is not inconsonance with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2009) 9 Supreme Court Cases 689 [cited supra], hence, taking note of the fact that important procedure that has to be followed as to whether in a partition suit, before passing of the final decree where an Advocate Commissioner has to be appointed to note down the physical features and to make assessment so as to enable the Court to pass the final decree or the matter has to be referred before the District Collector as per the wordings mentioned in Section 54 of CPC has to be considered by a Division Bench of this Court to settle the law as to the procedure to be followed in the partition suit by the subordinate Courts in this State.
by Sekar Reporter · Published February 13, 2021
by Sekar Reporter · Published December 22, 2021
Justice M S Ramesh observed that though the petitioner and Dharmaraj’s names were dropped from the charge sheet, there was no explanation as to how the petitioner was punished with stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect and the co-delinquent with similar overt acts was imposed black mark. High court quashes cop’s punishment citing discrimination
by Sekar Reporter · Published December 10, 2019