The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed a second appeal for non-prosecution because the appellant failed to provide instructions to counsel and the sole respondent was deceased, rendering the case time-barred for further steps.
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. No. 1536 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
S.A. No.1536 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011
Radha
... Appellant
Versus
Rajaparvathi ... Respondent
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, against the Judgment and decree dated 06.07.2011 passed in A.S.No.1 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Neyveli, in confirming the decree and judgment dated 02.11.2010 passed in O.S.No.7 of 2010 by the District Munsif and Magistrate Court, Neyveli.
J U D G M E N T
The Second Appeal has been listed for hearing under the caption
“for dismissal” today. However, learned counsel for the appellant submits
that he has not received any instruction from the appellant so far.
S.A. No. 1536 of 2011
passed the following order:-
“ When the case was taken up for hearing on 04.09.2024, it was represented by the learned counsel for the appellant that the sole respondent was no more. Hence, this Court ordered notice to the respondent.
2. Now, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that despite the letter sent to the appellant to get along with the case. But there is no instruction from the appellant, and unable to contact the appellant.
3. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant is unable to get along with the case without getting instructions from the appellant and seeks time for the same. ”
appellant's failure to provide instructions to their counsel, and demise of the sole respondent and no steps were due, this Court has no option but to dismiss the Second Appeal for non-prosecution.
prosecution. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition
S.A. No. 1536 of 2011
15.10.2024
is also closed.
Index :Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking Order Neutral Case Citation : Yes/No
To:
1. The Subordinate Court, Neyveli,
3. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court of Madras.
klt
S.A. No. 1536 of 2011
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
klt
S.A.No.1536 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011
15.10.2024
Radha
Rajaparvathi
N. Senthilkumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
