Plaintiffs in a civil suit appeared less than three absently without paying court fees, signaling lack of interest; the court dismissed the suit for default.
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 : 04.01.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
C.S.No.466 of 2011 & OA.No.585 of 2011
Rep. by its partner Mrs.Anuja R. Balaji
Versus
.. Defendants
The plaint is filed and numbered as Civil Suit under order VII Rule 1 of CPC r/w. IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules of High Court, Madras, praying for a judgment and decree:
2
property as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs.
(c) to direct the 6th defendant to strike off the sale deed dated
30.01.2008, registered as document No.700/2008 from the file
of the 6th defendant.
(d) Pay the costs of this suit.
For Plaintiff : No Appearance For Defendants : No Appearance
JUDGMENT
Today when the matter came up for hearing, there is no
representation for the plaintiffs. Even before the learned Master, plaintiffs
have not appeared for more than 3 hearings and they also not paid batta.
2. The above conduct of the plaintiffs clearly indicates that the
plaintiffs are not interested in prosecuting the case. Hence, the suit is
dismissed for default. Consequently, the connected application is also dismissed.
04.01.2017
Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No pvs
3
N.Sathish Kumar, J., pvs
C.S.No.466 of 2011 & OA.No.585 of 2011
04.01.2017
M/s.Shree Lakshmi Enterprises
Jamila
Padmavathy
Anjali
Devarani
Kotteesvari
N. Sathish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
