The Madras High Court dismissed two second appeals filed under S.100 CPC as infructuous, observing that respondents took possession of the suit property in 2017 pursuant to an execution order, rendering the appeals无效.
Second appeals dismissed as infructuous. No order as to 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.
S.A.(MD)No.234 & 235 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 19.04.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
S.A.(MD)Nos.234 & 235 of 2017
S.A.(MD)Nos.234 of 2017:
1.Arulmigu Muniasamy Kovil Nirvaga Sangam, Represented by its Secretary Ramasubbu.
2.Arumugavadivu ... Appellants
/Vs./
Sivaji Udarpayirchi Kazhagam, Represented by its President Paulraj. ...Respondent
S.A.(MD)Nos.235 of 2017:
Arulmigu Muniasamy Kovil Nirvaga Sangam, Represented by its Secretary Ramasubbu.
... Appellant
/Vs./
1.Sivaji Udarpayirchi Kazhagam, Represented by its President and Secretary.
2.Paulraj
3.Santhanaraj ...Respondents
1/4
S.A.(MD)No.234 & 235 of 2017
COMMON PRAYER : Second Appeals filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.74 & 75 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Thoothukudi dated 20.06.2011 confirming the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.408 of 2005 & 424 of 2004, on the file of the Addl. District Munsif Court, Thoothukudi, dated 28.03.2007.
For Appellants : Mr.M.P.Senthil (in both appeals) For Respondents : Mr.Johnson (in both appeals)
COMMON JUDGMENT
The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that he is
unable to contact his clients, despite his best efforts. The said statement is recorded.
2. However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has
filed additional typed set of papers dated 05.04.2023 stating that the respondents have already taken possession of the suit schedule property as early as on 30.07.2017, pursuant to an order dated 08.06.2017 passed in an Execution Petition. A copy of the docket order dated 08.06.2017
2/4
S.A.(MD)No.234 & 235 of 2017
passed in the Execution Petition and a copy of the Amena report (with clean copy) dated 13.07.2017 have also been filed in the additional typed set of papers to confirm that the respondents have already taken possession of the suit schedule property.
3. Since the respondents have taken possession of the suit schedule property wayback in the year 2017 itself, nothing survives for further adjudication in these Second Appeals. After recording the aforementioned facts, these Second Appeals are dismissed as infructuous.
There shall be no order as to costs.
19.04.2023 Index : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No Sm
TO:
1.The Sub Court, Thoothukudi.
2.The Addl. District Munsif Court, Thoothukudi.
3.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
3/4
S.A.(MD)No.234 & 235 of 2017
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
sm
Common Judgment made in S.A.(MD)No.234 & 235 of 2017
Dated: 19.04.2023
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal continues to be maintainable where the respondents have already taken physical possession of the scheduled property.
Whether the second appeals filed under S.100 of CPC in invoking second appeal can quash the order passed in execution petition.
Arulmigu Muniasamy Kovil Nirvaga Sangam
Arumugavadivu
Sivaji Udarpayirchi Kazhagam
Abdul Quddose
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
