Nazneen Begum., v. Mr. Kareem Ahamed.,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27-02-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL in CS No.531 of 2018

1. Nazneen Begum., W/o. Late Shameem Ahamed, No.18, P.V. Lane, 1st Flr, M.K. Garden, Chennai - 1. and 4 Others

2. Shabbir Ahamed., S/o. Late Shameem Ahamed, No.18, P.V. Lane, I Flr, M.K., Garden, Chennai - 1.

3. Mohammed Ghouse Basha., S/o. Late Shameem Ahamed, No.18, P.V. Lane, Ground Flr, M.K. Garden, Chennai - 1.

4. Mrs. Mumtaz Begum., D/o. Late Shameem Ahamed, W/o.

Abdul Gaffar Residing, No.2, 5th Lane, Jani Jahan Khan St, Royapettah, Chennai - 14.

5. Ruksana., D/o. Late Shameem Ahamed, W/o.

Mohammed Munavar, No.119, Savarayalu St, Pondicherry - 605001.

Applicant(s) Vs

1. Mr. Kareem Ahamed., S/o Late D.K.Hussain, No. 18, 2nd Flr, P.V. Lane, M.K. Garden, Chennai - 1.

2.Shukoor Ahamed., S/o. Late D.K.H ussain, No.18, 3rd and 4th Flr, P.V. Lane, M.K. Garden, Chennai - 1 3.Mr. Abdul Jabbar., S/o. H. Kareem Ahamed, No. 18, 2nd Flr, P.V. Lane, M.K. Garden, Chennai - 1.

4.Mr. Mohammed Kassim., S/o. Shukoor Ahamed, NO. 18, 3rd Flr, P.V. Lane, M.K. Garden, Chennai - 1.

5.LIC Housing Finance Ltd., Rep by its Area Manager, Harrington Chambers, Block C No.30/1A, Abdul Razack I St, Saidapet, Chenai - 15.

Respondent(s) For Applicant(s):

M/S.M. Radhakrishnan P.Pugalenthi For Respondent:

ORDER

This application is filed by the applicant to handover the certified copies of the relevant documents to the learned Advocate Commissioner

enabling him to make necessary application for demolishing the 'A' schedule property.

2. According to the applicant, this Court vide order dated 08.07.2025 directed the respondents 1 to 4 to hand over the relevant original documents to the learned Advocate Commissioner enabling him to make necessary applications to the concerned authority for demolition of the 'A' schedule property. Since that order was not complied with by the respondents 1 to 4 the petitioner also filed contempt petition and the same is pending. Due to non furnishing of the original documents, he is not in a position to proceed further. Therefore, the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to produce the certified copies of the relevant documents.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that she has to file elaborate counter and sought for adjournment to file counter.

4. Already sufficient opportunities were given to the respondents, but they have not file any counter.

Considering the nature of application and already this Court directed the respondents to furnish the

original documents but they have not furnished original documents to the learned Advocate Commissioner. Now the petitioner wants to produce the certified copies of those documents. Therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the other side by allowing this application. Accordingly, this application is allowed.

List the matter on 12.03.2026.

27.02.2026 mtl

P. DHANABAL, J., mtl in CS No.531 of 2018 27.02.2026