Dismissed

The Chairma (Urc) v. S. Thomas

Madras HC22 Nov 2019CMP/7128/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court vacated an order condoning delay in filing a second appeal and dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Petition due to non-compliance with the condition to pay costs of Rs.1,000/- to the respondent's counsel. Consequently, the second appeal was rejected.

What did the court decide?

The order passed in C.M.P.No.7128 of 2018 dated 17.07.2018 was vacated; the Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed; the Second Appeal is rejected.

The Chairma (Urc) Vs S. Thomas — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 22.11.2018

¶4

Coram

¶5

The Honourable Ms.Justice P.T.ASHA

¶6

C.M.P.No.7128 of 2018

¶7

and

¶8

S.A.No.SR20519 of 2018

¶9

1.The Chairman (URC),
Embarkation Headquarters,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commandant,
Embarkation Headquaters,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶10

S.Thomas

¶11

...Appellants in S.A.No.SR20519 of 2018 & Petitioners in C.M.P.No.7128 of 2018 Versus ...Respondent in S.A.No.SR20519 of 2018 & C.M.P.No.7128 of 2018

¶12

Prayer in C.M.P.No.7128 of 2018:

¶13

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Order 41 Rule 3(A) r/w Order 42 Rule 1 of C.P.C praying to condone the delay of 118 days in filing the SA.No.SR20519 of 2018 against

¶14

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶15

¶16

judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.34 of 2016 dated 05.10.2016 by the Hon'ble VII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.

¶17

Prayer in S.A.No.SR20519 of 2018:

¶18

This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2016 passed in A.S.No.34 of 2016 by the Hon'ble VII Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai, reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court in O.S.No.4650 of 2015 dated 23.11.2015 passed by the Hon'ble XVII Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai.

¶19

For Appellants in S.A.No.SR20519 of 2018 & Petitioners in C.M.P.No.7128 of 2018 : No Appearance

¶20

For Respondent in S.A.No.SR20519 of 2018 & C.M.P.No.7128 of 2018 : Mr.S.Sadashalam

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

It is seen from the records that by an order dated 17.07.2018, this Court had condoned the delay of 118 days in filing the Second Appeal, subject to the petitioners paying a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the counsel appearing for the respondent within a week from the date of that order.

¶23

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶24

¶25

Thereafter, when the matter came up on 19.11.2018, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the order of this Court dated 17.07.2018 has not been complied with. Hence, the matter was directed to be listed under the

¶26

caption, "For Orders" on 22.11.2018 i.e., today.

¶27

no representation for the petitioners.

¶28

respondent would submit that the costs of Rs.1,000/- has not

¶29

been paid by the petitioners as per the aforesaid order of this Court dated 17.07.2018.

¶30

It is seen that ever before the said order dated

¶31

17.07.2018, the learned counsel for petitioners has been absent on several occasions and the matter was earlier posted thrice under the caption, "For Dismissal". This clearly demonstrates the reluctance on the part of the counsel for the petitioners to proceed with the matter.

¶32

http://www.judis.nic.in

P.T.ASHA, J.,

mrr

In the result, the order passed by this Court in C.M.P.No.7128 of 2018 dated 17.07.2018 shall stand vacated for

¶37

non-compliance of the same and the Civil Miscellaneous Petition

¶38

is dismissed. Consequently, S.A.No.SR20519 of 2018 is also
rejected. No costs.
22.11.2018
mrr
To

¶39

1.The VII Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai.

¶40

2.The XVII Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai.

¶41

C.M.P.No.7128 of 2018 and S.A.No.SR20519 of 2018

¶42

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶43

¶44

http://www.judis.nic.in

The Chairma (Urc) v. S. Thomas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chairma (Urc) v. S. Thomas

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

Selvaraj Vs Natarajan

Chinnasamy Gounder(Died) Vs Vanitha @ Poongavanammal

The Metropolitan Transport Vs R.Ranga Pillai

Muthusamy Gounder Vs Ramayammal

A.H.J.Mahavishnu Vs G.Nagarajan

Nagarajan Vs Ramasamy