Dismissed

S.Muriaraj (Died) v. N.Malairaj

Madras HC22 Dec 2022SA/862/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code by default. The appellants failed to appear or furnish instructions despite court directions, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without costs.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal is dismissed for default due to the non-appearance of the appellants and their counsel.

S.Muriaraj (Died) Vs N.Malairaj — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

S.A.No.862 of 2000

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 22.12.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

S.A.No.862 of 2000

1.S.Mariaraj (Died)

2.G.Lucas

3.A.Viyakulam

4.S.Innasimuthu (Died) ... Appellants/Appellants/ Defendants 1 to 4

¶11

(for themselves and on behalf of Christian Community at Therku Keeranur Gramam)

¶12

[Memo dated 24.02.2014 in USR No.1038 is recorded as appellants 1 and 4 died vide order dated 29.01.2021 in S.A.No.862 of 2000]

1.N.Malairaj

2.K.Chellam Udayar

3.Sathiah Servai (Died) ... Respondents 1 to3/ Respondents 1 to 3/Plaintiffs

¶17

(for themselves and on behalf of Hindu Community at Therku Keeranur )

¶18

_________Page 1 of 4

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

S.A.No.862 of 2000

¶21

4.Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep., by the Collector, Sivaganga District, Sivagangai. ... 4^th Respondent/4^th Respondent/ 5^th Defendant 5.Palani Selvam ... 5^th Respondent

¶22

[5th respondent – brought on record as LR of the deceased 3rd respondent vide order dated 29.01.2021 made in C.M.P.(MD) Nos.10211, 10214 & 10215 of 2019 in S.A.No.862 of 2000]

¶23

Prayer:- Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the judgment and decree dated 08.12.1998 made in A.S.No.10 of 1998 on the file of the Sub Court, Sivaganga confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.08.1997 made in O.S.No.73 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Manamadurai.

¶24

For Appellants	:	No appearance
For R1	:	No appearance
R2 & R3	:	Died
For R4	:	Mr.D.Gandhi Raj Special Government Pleader

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellants reported 'no instructions' on 16.03.2022. Recording the same, this Court directed the Registry to print

¶27

_________Page 2 of 4

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

S.A.No.862 of 2000

¶30

the name of the appellants and post the case for hearing. Thereafter, when the matter was listed on 20.12.2022, there was no representation for the appellants. In order to given an opportunity to the appellants, the second appeal was adjourned with a direction to the Registry to comply with the order dated 16.03.2022 and post the matter under the caption 'for dismissal'. Even today, there is no representation for the appellants. Hence, this Second Appeal is dismissed for default. No costs.

¶31

22.12.2022

¶32

Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No

¶33

abr

¶34

¶35

1.The Sub Judge, Sivaganga.

¶36

2.The District Munsif, Manamadurai.

¶37

3.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶38

Page 3 of 4

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.No.862 of 2000

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

abr

S.A.No.862 of 2000

22.12.2022

_________Page 4 of 4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.Muriaraj (Died) v. N.Malairaj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Muriaraj (Died) v. N.Malairaj

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

Shaanavas @ Khader Mydeen Vs Rakila John, Old NO.1-32, New

S.Sridevi Vs Mariappan

Lakshmi Vs Santhosh

Arokiyam, Vs 1. Elias (Died) 2) Devadoss

Natarajee Vs Chelliah, (Died)

K. Shanmugam, Vs K. Sigamani