The Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition and a Second Appeal for default, noting that the Respondents were contesting parties but notices had not been served despite court orders, indicating the Appellants were not interested in contesting matters pending since 2008.
The Civil Revision Petition (C.R.P.) and the Second Appeal (S.A.) were dismissed 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.04.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISHKUMAR
C.R.P.No.2970 of 2008 and S.A.No.1209 of 2008
1.Viswanathan Saroja (Died) 2.Kasthuri 3.Munian ...Petitioners/Petitioners/ /Defendants 1,4 and 5 Vs 1.Kalyanasundaram ..1 st Respondent/Respondent /Plaintiff 2.Karunakaran ..2 nd Respondent/2 nd Respondent /2 nd Defendant C.R.P.No.2970 of 2008
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the Order and Decree made in I.A.No.52 of 2006 in O.S.No.105 of 2005 dated 07.08.2006 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Gingee.
S.A.No.1209 of 2008
PRAYER: Second Appea l filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree made in A.S.No.105 of 2005 dated 07.08.2006 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Gingee, confirming the Judgment and Decree made in O.S.No.52 of 2002 dated 25.09.2003 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Gingee.
For Petitioners/Appellants: Mr.T.R.RAJARAMAN For Respondents : Mr.D.RAVICHANDRAN for R1.
It is seen from records that the 2nd respondent is only a contesting respondent. He is none other than the son of the 1st
revision petitioner/1st appellant. Despite the orders of this Court to serve notice to the 2nd respondent, notice has not been served till date.
2.These facts clearly indicate that the revision petitioners/appellants are not interested in contesting the cases and the matters are pending from the year 2008.
3.Hence, these Civil Revision Petition as well as the second appeal are dismissed for default. No costs. ay
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Subordinate Judge,
Gingee.
2.The Principal District Munsif,
Gingee.
+2cc to Mr.D.Ravichander, Advocate, SR.No.30946 & 30947
+1cc to Mr. T.T.Ravichandran,Advocate, SR.No.31760
C.R.P.No.2970 of 2008
and
S.A.No.1209 of 2008
Kak(22/05/2019)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to dismiss the pending Civil Revision Petition and Second Appeal for default.
Whether the Applicants should be granted time to serve notice on the defaulting Respondent.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Viswanathan Saroja (Died)
Kasthuri
Munian
Kalyanasundaram
Karunakaran
N. Sathishkumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
