Disposal of Civil Suit No.133 of 2002 where the Plaintiff failed to appear despite notices and listing. The Court dismissed the suit for non-prosecution due to lack of representation.
Suit dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs.
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.
C.S.No.133 of 2002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :06.08.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
C.S.No.133 of 2002
and A.No.4742 of 2019
Naveen
Minor represented by mother
and natural guardian
Meena ... Plaintiff
Vs
1. John Manjooran
2. Romala Sarkar
3. Allonsa
4. Indraneil
Minors represented by father and guardian
Arunava Sarkar
5.Vijay Mohan Menon
6.Malavika
7.Nikhil
defendants 6 and 7
represented by father and guardian,
Vijay Mohan, 5th defendant
8.Ajesh Kumar
9.T.Jayanthi
10.T.S.Natarajan
11.T.N.Kalaimani
12.T.N.Thiru Kumar
13.N.Padmavathi
14.K.Navamani
15.D.T.Arulraj
16.Margarita
17.Sheik Mohammed Haji
18.S.A.Nagendran ...Defendants
1/5
C.S.No.133 of 2002
Plaint under Order XXXV and Order IV Rule 1 of O.S.Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C praying for
(a) For framing a Scheme for proper administration of the property morefully described in the schedule Ä"in terms of the Deed of Trust; (b)For appointing the Administrator General directing him to get probate of the Will of late Leela Menon and dated 25.11.1988 and to administer the estate the deceased and morefully described as Item Nos.1 to 7 in Schedule 'B' hereunder and other property which may come light;
(c) for directing the defendants 1,2 and 5 to render true and correct accounts in respect of the income and expenses with regard to the entire properties from 16.11.1989 till date of the Administrator General takes charge of the estate as Receiver thereof;
(d) For granting a permanent injunction, restraining the defendants their men, agents, servants or any one claiming through them from in any manner claiming ownership or alienating or encumbering the properties morefully described in the schedule 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D" hereunder;
(e) For granting a permanent injunction, restraining the defendants 9 to 14 their men,agents, servants or anyone claiming through them from in any manner claiming any right in relation to the property morefully described as item No.1 in the schedule 'B' hereunder;
(f) for granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 15 and 16 their men, agents, servants or any one claiming through them from in any manner claiming any right in relation to the property morefully described as Item No.4 in the schedule 'B' hereunder (g) for
2/5
C.S.No.133 of 2002
granting a permanent injunction, restraining the defendant 17, his men, agents, servants or any one claiming through him from in any manner claiming right in relating to the property morefully described as Item No.3 in the schedule "B" hereunder;
(e) for directing the defendants 1,2 and 5 to pay the costs of this suit to the plaintiff.
For Plaintiffs : No Appearance For Defendant-1 : Mr.K.Ashokumar For Defendant-2 : Mr.D.Arvind Sriveda For Defendants-3 and 4 : Mr.Arun Dhanapalan for Mr.A.Jenasenan For Defendants 9 to 14 : Mr.R.Parthasarathy For Defendants 15 and 16 : Mr.C.Ramesh
Defendants 5 to 8, 17 and 18 : Served-No Appearance. JUDGMENT
When the matter was taken up for hearing on 12.06.2019,
there was no representation for the plaintiff. Hence, the Registry was directed to send notice to the plaintiff to the address shown in the plaint. Notice sent to the plaintiff has been returned with an endorsement "No such person". When the matter was called on 05.08.2019, there was no representation for the plaintiff. Hence, this
3/5
C.S.No.133 of 2002
Court directed the Registry to print the name of the plaintiff and post the matter on 06.08.2019 under the caption 'for dismissal'. Even today, though the name of the plaintiff is printed in the cause list, there is no representation for the plaintiff. Therefore, the suit is dismissed for 'non prosecution'. No costs. Consequently, A.No.4742 of
2019 is closed.
06.08.2019
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
srn
4/5
C.S.No.133 of 2002
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA.J
srn
C.S.No.133 of 2002
and A.No.4742 of 2019
06.08.2019
5/5
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Naveen (Minor represented by mother Meena)
John Manjooran
Romala Sarkar
Allonsa
Indraneil
Arunava Sarkar
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
