The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The plaintiffs failed to appear and were not ready to proceed from 2015. The court dismissed the suit for non-prosecution due to lack of interest and unreadiness.
The suit was dismissed for non-prosecution.
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: 24.01.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
C.S.No.502 of 2011
1.Dr.M.S.Kathirvelu 2.Dr.K.Senthil Kumar 3.Dr.K.Saravana Kumar 4.Dr.S.Sivanatha Kumar
.. Plaintiff
Versus
Dr.C.Anbarasu
.. Defendant
Prayer: The plaint is filed and numbered as Civil Suit under Order IV Rule 1 of O.S. Rules with Order VII Rule 1 of CPC, praying for a judgment and decree against the defendant
For Plaintiff : No appearance For Defendant : No appearance *****
2
N.Sathish Kumar, J.,
rm
JUDGMENT
The Suit is of the year 2011. On perusal of the notes paper of the learned Additional Master III, it reveals that the plaintiffs are not ready from the year 2015, inspite of several adjournments.
Today, when the matter came up for hearing, there is no representation on either side. The conduct of the plaintiff clearly indicates that he is not interested in prosecuting the case. Hence, the suit is dismissed for non-prosecution.
24.01.2017
rm
C.S.No.502 of 2011
3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the suit in specific performance of the agreement of sale should be allowed when the plaintiffs failed to appear and were not ready to execute the decree.
N. Sathish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
