Single para order in an appeal filed under Section 96 CPC. The court dismissed the appeal for default as the appellants failed to appear and neglected to serve notices on 80 respondents despite being listed for years.
Appeal suit dismissed for default. 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
A.S.No.21 of 2011
1.K.M.Kadirvel 2.T.M.Krishnavel 3.M.Pappuammal
.. Appellants Vs.
T.N.Arthanari Mudaliar (died)
1.A.Rajavel 2.B.Irusappa Raja 3.M.Vijayarani 4.B.Govindarajan 5.Nagammal 6.C.Pavayammal 7.R.Samporanavalli 8.Ramalingam 9.S.Chitra 10.A.Bhanureka 11.S.Umadevi 12.M.Vidyalakshmi 13.A.Velayutham 14.A.Poongodi 15.V.Sivakumar 16.Balamurugan 17.M.Kandasami 18.P.K.Sekar 19.K.Madesan 20.T.S.Annamalai 22.T.K.Arunachalam 23.Y.C.Ayyavoo 24.T.R.Muniappan 25.Y.M.A.Subramani 26.Y.T.K.Kuppusamy 27.S.Arthanari 28.P.Ariyaputhiran 29.K.Ramalingam 30.Thiyagarajan 31.S.Dharmalinga 32.M.Muniappan 33.A.Vanitha 34.S.Sivagami 35.T.Saravanan 36.K.Marimuthu 37.K.Mani 38.A.Thangavelu 39.A.Manickam https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 40.P.Kumaravel
41.R.Sekar 42.M.Kanimozhi 43.Santhi 44.M.Dhanalakshmi 45.G.Gopal 46.M.Kandasamy 47.M.Murugavel 48.K.Senthilkumar 49.T.Santhi 50.M.Baby 51.A.Chandiran 52.K.Vedeeswaran 53.K.Devaki 54.K.Kalyani 55.M.Kumaravel 56.M.Selvi 57.S.Venkisamy 58.V.Rajendran 59.L.Ranganayaki 60.R.Kanmani 61.K.Venkatachalam 62.V.Vijaya 63.M.Thangamani 64.M.Velumani 65.M.Nagarajan 66.K.Janaki 67.K.Arthanari 68.K.Balamurugan 69.K.Mariappan 70.K.Srinivasan 71.K.Gomathi 72.K.Dhanalakshmi 73.R.Vijaya 74.R.Ravi 75.R.Selvi 76.M.Savithri 77.M.Mohan 78.M.Santhi 79.M.Chandra 80.M.Uma .. Respondents
PRAYER: Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of C.P.C, against the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge/ Fast Track Court No.2, Salem in partly allowing the O.S.No.132 of 2006.
For Appellant : Mr.P.Sathish For R2, 5, 51, 56, 63 to 67, 69 to 75 : Mr.B.Shyam For R4 : Mr.R.Nalliyappan For R12, 17, 18, 22 25 to 27, 29, 31 to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 33, 42, 57 and 68 : Not ready notice
J U D G M E N T
In this appeal totally there are 80 respondents. The appellants have not taken steps to serve some of the respondents. When the matter was listed on 17.02.2022, there was no representation on behalf of the appellants. Hence the matter was posted today for dismissal.
Sd/-
Deputy Registrar(CS)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rpl
To
The Additional District Judge/ Fast Track Court No.2, Salem.
+1 cc to Mr.P.Sathish, Advocate Sr.NO. 12166
A.S.No.21 of 2011
bp(CO) A.SK(10/03/2022)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal filed under Section 96 of C.P.C can be dismissed for default when appellants failed to appear and serve notices on multiple respondents.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.M.Kadirvel and others
T.N.Arthanari Mudaliar (died) and others
Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
