The Court dismissed a civil suit for permanent injunction for non-prosecution as the plaintiff failed to appear to tender evidence before the Additional Master, despite the suit being set ex-parte.
The civil suit was dismissed for non-prosecution with no costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16. 1 1 . 2 0 1 6
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C. V . K A R T H I K E Y A N
C. S . N o . 7 2 2 of 20 1 0
Mr.S.Sivakami
... Plaintiff
V s.
P R A Y E R : This Civil Suit filed under Order VI Rule 1 O.S. Rules and Order VII Rule 1 CPC, praying for the following reliefs:
(a) pass a Judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants and any one claiming under them from in any way alienating or otherwise encumbering the suit schedule mentioned property;
2
(b) for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants and any one claiming under them from demolishing the super structure existing over the suit schedule mentioned property;
(c) for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants and any one claiming under them from putting up any construction in any manner whatsoever over the suit schedule mentioned property; and
(d) for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants and any one claiming under them from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule mentioned property.
The matter has been posted before this Court today under the caption 'for
dismissal'.
2. The learned Additional Master No.IV had noted that the plaintiff has
not appeared before him consecutively for recording of evidence. The defendants
had also been set ex-parte. However, the petitioner has not appeared before the
3
learned Additional Master No.IV for tendering his evidence. Hence, this Civil Suit
is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs.
Vsg
16.11.2016
4
C. V . K A R T H I K E Y A N , J.
vsg
C. S . N o . 7 2 2 of 20 1 0
16. 1 1 . 2 0 1 6
5
htt p ://w w w . j u d i s . n i c . i n
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a civil suit for permanent injunction should be dismissed for non-prosecution and lack of appearance before the Master.
S.Sivakami
Mr. Meigyanamurthy
Mr. Ramakrishnan
Mrs. Rajakumari
Mr. Perumal
Mrs. Alamelu
C. V. Kartikeyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
