Dismissed

Nagendran v. Rajan

Madras HC18 Aug 2020SA/1051/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC regarding a suit from 2002, the Court dismissed the appeal. The respondent had been deceased since May 2015, but the appellant failed to bring his legal representatives on record despite five years of adjournments and numerous listings. The Court held that no further adjournments are granted for inordinate delay.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed; no costs were awarded to the respondent's legal representatives.

Nagendran Vs Rajan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 18.08.2020

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶5

S.A.No.1051 of 2009

¶6

Nagendran .. Appellant/Appellant/Plaintiff

¶7

Vs. Rajan .. Respondent/Respondent/Defendant

¶8

PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.60 of 2003, dated 28.08.2008 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Court, Villupuram, affirming the judgment and decree passed by the II Additional District Munsif Court, Ulundurpet in O.S.No.60 of 2002 dated 26.11.2002.

¶9

For Appellant : Mr.Vinu Pradha For S.Ramesh Kumar For Respondent : Mr.R.T.Sundari J U D G M E N T (The case has been heard through video conference)

¶10

This Court was informed about the death of the sole respondent as early as 10.05.2015 and the learned Judge has adjourned the matter for enabling the appellant to take steps and bring legal representatives of the deceased sole respondent.

¶11

Despite granting adjournment and the matter was listed on 17.08.2015, 21.08.2015 and 29.07.2020, for five years the appellant has not taken any steps. When the matter is taken up today after granting adjournment on 29.07.2020 for taking steps and to ascertain whether the parties are still interested in pursuing the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to bring Lrs of the sole respondent.

¶12

The suit is of the year 2002. After the death of the sole respondent and reported about his death five years ago, the appellant has not taken any steps to bring legal representatives on record. This Court is not inclined to grant

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Page numbers

¶14

any further adjournment in this matter. Hence, the second appeal is dismissed. No costs.

¶15

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rpl
To
1.The II Additional District Munsif Court,
Ulundurpet.
2.The I Additional Subordinate Court,
Villupuram.
3.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar, Advocate SR.27176
S.A.No.1051 of 2009
AD(CO)
CB(08/12/2020)

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Page numbers

Nagendran v. Rajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagendran v. Rajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thiruverkadu Municipality Vs Central Govt. Employees

The Collector of South Vs Arulsami

Easwari Vs Papathi

United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Chennai Vs S.Ravi Kumar

Pandurangan Vs Sampath

Metropolitan Transport Vs Vijayalakshmi