The plaintiff failed to prosecute the suit between June and July 2016 and was not ready to record evidence. The court held that the plaintiff's conduct showed lack of interest. The suit was dismissed for non-prosecution.
Suit 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 : 09.01.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
T.O.S.No.17 of 2008
W.S.Seetharam .. Plaintiff Versus 1.T.R.T.Thirumalvasi 2.V.K.John .. Defendants
The T.O.S. numbered on conversion of O.P. filed under Section 232 & 276 of the Indian Succession Act XXXIX of 1925 and XXV Rule 4 of the High Court Rules, praying to grant of Letters of Administration and Security.
For Plaintiff : W.S.Seetharam Party-in-person
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit from
13.06.2016 to 15.07.2016. The plaintiff is not ready to record the evidence.
2. The plaintiff conduct shows that he is not interested to prosecute the suit.
2
N.Sathish Kumar, J.,
nvi
3. Hence, the suit is dismissed for non-prosecution.
09.01.2017
Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No nvi
T.O.S.No.17 of 2008 http://www.judis.nic.in
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a suit for Letters of Administration is maintainable when the plaintiff fails to prosecute and is unready to record evidence.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
T.R.T.Thirumalvasi
V.K.John
N.Sathish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
