Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Mathisa Pandian Vs J.Samuel — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2024)

Home
Madras HC
2024
Mathisa Pandian Vs J.SamuelMathisa Pandian v. J.Samuel

Dismissed

Mathisa Pandian v. J.Samuel

Madras HC13 Dec 2024SA/1676/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second Appeal dismissed as default due to death of first appellant and failure by other appellants to appear within the period of limitation.

What did the court decide?

None. Appeal dismissed as default. No costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

A

S.A.No.1676 of 2001

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 13.12.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

S.A.No.1676 of 2001

1.Mathisa Pandian

2.Ashokan @ Ashok Pandian

...Plaintiff/1^st Respondent/Appellant

(A2 is impleaded as per the Order of the Court dated 07.03.2003 made in C.Msd.P.Nos.5133 & 5144 of 2003)

-Vs-

1.J.Samuel ...2^nd Defendant/Appellant/1^st Respondent 2.Beula 3.Daniel 4.Aldrin 5.Vimala 6.Sudhakar ...Defendants 3 to 7/Respondents 2 to 6/ Respondents 2 to 6

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Civil Procedure Code100

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
Mathisa Pandian
appellant
Ashokan @ Ashok Pandian
appellant
J.Samuel
respondent
Beula
respondent
Daniel
respondent

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 13 Dec 2024 · December
Registered: 28 Mar 2001
Case no.: SA/1676/2001

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from V.sivagnanam

Dr.Mohamed Haneef Vs Shri Balaji Pandithar Chathram
12 Dec 2024
Manoharan Vs Karuppasamy
12 Dec 2024
S.Sankaranarayana Pillai Vs Kuruppasamy
12 Dec 2024
Mathisa Pandian Vs J.Samuel
13 Dec 2024

Cite this judgement

Mathisa Pandian v. J.Samuel, SA/1676/2001 (MAD), decided on 13 December 2024.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Civil Procedure Code100

View all statutes

Bench / Coram

V.Sivagnanam

Parties & counsel

Outcome

None. Appeal dismissed as default. No costs.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

This appeal was dismissed as default. The first appellant had died, preventing his participation. The third appellant was also dead, and no steps had been taken within the stipulated period of limitation to proceed with the appeal. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and awarded no costs.

A compact analysis

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.

Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and decree dated 19.12.2000 made in A.S.No.215 of 1999 on the file of the 1^st Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli, reversing the Judgment and Decree, dated 09.07.1999 made in O.S.No.230 of 1995 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli.

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

Page 1 of 3

S.A.No.1676 of 2001

For Appellants : Mr.J.Antony Jesus for A1 Mr.C.Ravichandran for A2 For Respondents : Mr.D.Nallathambi for R1 Mr.T.Selvakumaresan for R2, R3 and R5 No appearance for R4 and R6

JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and decree dated 19.12.2000 made in A.S.No.215 of 1999 on the file of the 1^st Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 09.07.1999 made in O.S.No.230 of 1995 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli.

2.When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the first appellant submitted that the first appellant died and he is unable to conduct the party. R3 also died and steps have not been taken within the period of limitation as stipulated and they are not ready to take the appeal.

3.In view of the above, this Second Appeal is dismissed as default. No costs.

13.12.2024 1/2

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis RJR

Page 2 of 3

S.A.No.1676 of 2001

V.SIVAGNANAM. J,

RJR

To

1.The 1^st Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli.

2.The Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli.

3.The Section Officer, V.R. Section,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

S.A.No.1676 of 2001

13.12.2024 1/2

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

Page 3 of 3

Aldrin

Coram

AI extract

V.Sivagnanam

CNR

HCMD012843802017

Topic

Civil Procedure and Limitation

Bench

Disposal

DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT

Sirajdeen Vs Mookkaya Thevar

16 Dec 2024

A.v.Rajaram Vs Narayanasamy

16 Dec 2024