Dismissed¶25

S.Venkatesh Babu v. T.M.Thomas @ Thomas Raj

Madras HC6 Feb 2025AS/12/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court (N. Sathish Kumar J., 06-02-2025) dismissed A.S.No.12 of 2022 for non-prosecution. The plaintiff-appellant's challenge under Section 96 CPC to the dismissal of his money suit (O.S.No.4543 of 2018, XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, decree dated 09.08.2021) failed solely due to his continued absence, notwithstanding counsel-on-record's notice dated 03.12.2024 and cause-list printing; no costs awarded. Keywords: non-prosecution, dismissal of appeal, money suit, Section 96 CPC, absence of appellant, no representation.

What did the court decide?

The appeal suit is dismissed for non-prosecution, as the appellant showed no interest in pursuing the appeal despite notice and cause-list printing ¶25

S.Venkatesh Babu Vs T.M.Thomas @ Thomas Raj — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

A.S.No.12 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06-02-2025

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶5

A.S.No.12 of 2022

¶6

S.Venkatesh Babu Proprietor, S/o K.A.Sundaram Chettiar, Carrying on business in Textiles in the name and style of Sundaram, Perambur, Chennai 600 011

¶7

Appellant

¶8

-Versus-

¶9

T.M.Thomas @ Thomas Raj Carrying on business in the name and style of M/s T.M.T. Clothing, No.91/87, Sanjaj Nagar, 1^st Sreet, Vysarpadi, Chennai 600 039

¶10

..... Respondent

¶11

Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to set aside the judgement and decree dated 09.08.2021 made in O.S.No.4543 of 2018 on the file of the learned XV Additional Judge, city Civil Court, Chennai.

¶12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1 of 4

¶13

A.S.No.12 of 2022

¶14

For Appellant : No Appearance [M/s.A.E.Ravichandran, N.Anbazhagan, D.Vishnu Varadhan & V.Susila] For Respondent : Mr.J.Arul Prakasam

¶15

JUDGEMENT

¶16

This appeal suit is at the instance of the plaintiff challenging the

¶17

dismissal of his money suit.

¶18

Today, when the appeal suit was called, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff. On the last hearing, it was seen from the records that the learnt counsel on record for the appellant had submitted that they had already sent a notice to the appellant on 03.12.2024 requesting him to receive the case bundle back. A photocopy of the postal acknowledgement card was also produced on the last date of the hearing. Considering the above, this court had directed the Registry to print the name of the appellant on the cause list and post the matter on 06.02.2025.

¶19

Despite the name of the appellant having been printed on the cause list, there has been no representation on behalf of the appellant either in person or through any counsel. Thus, it appears that the appellant is not interested in

¶20

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

¶21

2 of 4

¶22

A.S.No.12 of 2022

¶23

pursuing the appeal further. Hence, this court is inclined to dismiss the appeal

¶24

suit for non-prosecution of the matter.

¶25