Dismissed

A.R.Sivam. v. a.N.Raju

Madras HC16 Jul 2021SA/1857/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed both a second appeal filed under Section 100 CPC and a civil revision petition under Section 115 CPC for non-prosecution. The appellants/petitioners failed to appear on the listed days, leading the court to infer lack of interest and dismiss the matters accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal S.A. No.1857 of 1998 and Civil revision petition CRP(PD).No.2022 of 2002 are dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs.

A.R.Sivam. Vs a.N.Raju — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 16.07.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶5

S.A. No.1857 of 1998 & CRP(PD).No.2022 of 2002

¶6

In S.A.No.1857 of 1998 1.A.R.M.Sivam 2.M.Dhanasekaran ... Appellants Vs 1.A.N.Raju (Died) 2.State of Tamil Nadu by its District Collector of Periyar District, Erode 3.District Revenue Officer, Periyar District, Erode. 4.The Tahsildar of Gobichettipalayam 5.Sarojini 6.Dr.A.R.Mohan 7.A.R.Pratheban 8.Dr.A.R.Banumathi ... Respondents (Respondents 5 to 8 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased first respondent vide order of this Court dated 13.08.2007 made in CMP.Nos.8341 to 8343 of 2006)

¶7

PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C. against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.98 of 1997 on the file of the Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam dated 24.08.1998 by reversing the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.449 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif of Gobichettipalayam dated 06.12.1996.

¶8

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

¶9

For Appellant : No appearance For Respondent 1 : Died For Respondents 2 to 4 : Dr.S.Suriya For Respondents 5 to 8 : Mr.K.Govi Ganesan

¶10

In CRP (PD).No.2022 of 2002 1.A.R.M.Sivan 2.M.Dhanasekaran ... Petitioners

¶11

¶12

1.State of Tamil Nadu Represented by District Collector, of Periyar District at Erode.

¶13

2.A.N.Raju 3.O.V.Saravanan ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 23.07.2002 made in I.A.No.890 of 2000 in O.S.No.95 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam

¶15

For Appellants : No appearance For Respondent 1 : Dr.S.Suriya For Respondent 2 : Died For Respondent 3 : No appearance

¶16

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶17

The matter is listed under the caption “for dismissal” today. On 30.06.2021, the learned counsel for the Appellants/petitioners reported no instruction in this matter and therefore, this court directed the Registry to print the name of the Appellants/petitioners in the cause list and to list the matter on 05.07.2021. On 05.07.2021, the matter was listed under the caption “for dismissal” by printing the name of the counsel for the Appellants/petitioners instead of the name of the Appellants/petitioners and hence, Registry was directed to print the name of the Appellants/petitioners in the cause list and to list the matter under the same caption “For dismissal” today. Even today, the Appellants/petitioners have not entered appearance. It can now be inferred that the Appellants/petitioners are not interested in prosecuting this Second appeal as well as Civil revision petition. Accordingly,

¶18

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

¶19

both the Second appeal as well as the Civil revision petition are dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs.

¶20

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VII)

¶21

//True Copy//

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

nl To 1.The Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam 2.The District Munsif of Gobichettipalayam +1cc to the Special Government Pleader (SR No.34099)

¶24

+1cc to Mr.K.Govi Ganesan, Advocate (SR No.34138)

¶25

S.A. No.1857 of 1998 & CRP(PD).No.2022 of 2002

¶26

UM (CO) PR (09/08/2021)

¶27

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

A.R.Sivam. v. a.N.Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.R.Sivam. v. a.N.Raju

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

Ponnusamy Chettiar (Died) Vs Poolaga Chettiar

Masianna Gounder Vs Govindaswamy

Banu,W/O.Sekar Vs Mtc., Ltd., Chennai 600 002

P. Karuppusamy (Deceased) Vs Subramaniam

G.Gopal Vs G.C.Jain

Perumal Poosari Vs Mannarsamy (Also Known as