Dismissed

Bhavani Thiyagarajan v. Velusami Pandian @ Durairaj

Madras HC12 Nov 2013SA(MD)/80/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court disposed of a second appeal under Section 100 CPC. Upon the appellants filing a memo requesting withdrawal of the main suit with liberty to file a fresh suit, and non-appearance of respondents, the court dismissed the suit as withdrawn and disposed of the appeal accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The suit O.S.No.90 of 2004 was dismissed as withdrawn; liberty was granted to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action.

Bhavani Thiyagarajan Vs Velusami Pandian @… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 12.11.2013

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.KARUPPIAH

¶6

S.A(MD)No.80 of 2013

¶7

1.Bhavani Thiyagarajan

¶8

2.R.Sundararajulu

¶9

3.Girija Sundararajulu

¶10

4.Rajagopal

¶11

5.Sankari Rajagopal

¶12

:Appellants/Appellants/ Plaintiffs

¶13

(Appellants rep.thro' their Power Attorney Agent 5^th Appellant)

¶14

Vs.

¶15

1.Velusami Pandian @ Durairaj 2.Murugan

¶16

:Respondents/Respondents/Defendants

¶17

PRAYER: This second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2011 made in A.S.No.20 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ambasamudram confirming the judgment and decree dated 16.02.2010 made in O.S.No.90 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court/Judicial Magistrate Court, Cheranmahadevi.

¶18

For Appellants : Mr.P.Senthur Pandian For Respondents: No Appearance.

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. In spite of giving sufficient notice and printing their name in the causelist, the respondents have not appeared in person or through counsel.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the appellants filed a memo by stating that the appellants may be permitted to withdraw the second appeal and also to withdraw the main suit in O.S.No.90 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court/Judicial Magistrate Court, Cheranmahadevi, with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, since in the above said suit some technical defects in the plaint.

¶22

In view of the reasons stated in the memo and also considering the fact that both the respondents/defendants have not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appeared before this Court, this Court is of the view that permission may be given to the appellants to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action as prayed for in the said

¶23

¶24

memo.

¶25

In the result, O.S.No.90 of 2004 filed by the appellants before the District Munsif Court/Judicial Magistrate Court, Cheranmahadevi, is dismissed as withdrawn and liberty is given to the appellants to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The Second Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No Costs.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side)

¶28

/True Copy/

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

¶31

1.The Subordinate Judge, Ambasamudram.

¶32

2.The District Munsif Court cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Cheranmahadevi.

¶33

Copy to:

¶34

The Section Officer, V.R Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai

¶35

+1cc to Mr. P.Senthur Pandian, Advocate Sr.No.55443 pm AA/05.12.2013/2p-5c/

¶36

S.A(MD)No.80 of 2013 12.11.2013

¶37

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Bhavani Thiyagarajan v. Velusami Pandian @ Durairaj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhavani Thiyagarajan v. Velusami Pandian @ Durairaj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramanathan, Vs Thiru Neelakandan

Sarasu Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

D.Balaji Vs the Inspector of Police

Sub Inspector of Police, Vs K.S.Manickam

Kumar @ Kumaresan Vs the Inspector of Police

Panchavarnam Vs the Inspector of Police