Dismissed¶28

Mr. Murugesa Marudavanan v. Mr.M.Ganesh Prabhu

Madras HC7 Jul 2025AS/476/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; A.S.No. 476 of 2017; appeal suit dismissed for default; non-prosecution; no appearance / no representation by appellant; counsel reported no instructions and filed memo dated 11.06.2025; appellant called absent despite name printed in cause list; appeal under Order XLI read with Section 96 CPC against judgment and decree in O.S. No. 4377 of 2013 (XV Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, 22.12.2015); no order as to costs considering relationship between parties; second respondent died (order dated 25.04.2024); R. Sakthivel, J.; decided 07.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

The Appeal Suit is dismissed for default as the sole appellant did not appear despite his name being printed in the cause list; considering the relationship between the parties, there shall be no order as to costs. ¶28

Mr. Murugesa Marudavanan Vs Mr.M.Ganesh Prabhu — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

A.S.No. 476 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 07.07.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVEL

¶6

A.S.No. 476 of 2017

¶7

Murugesa Marudavanan residing at No. 8, Charulatha Apartments, 12/23 Club Road, Chetput, Chennai-31 presently residing at No. 20/35, Sunkuvar Street, Triplicane, Chennai-600 005. …Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

1.M.Ganesh Prabhu 79, New Boag Road, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.

¶10

2.K.V.Krishnan 79, New Boag Road T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. …Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Appeal Suit is filed under Order XLI read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.4377 of 2013 dated December 22, 2015 passed by XV Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.

¶12

1/4

¶13

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

¶14

A.S.No. 476 of 2017

¶15

For Appellant : No Appearance For Respondent-1 : M/s. Venkatakrishna Kumar For Respondent-2 : Died vide order dated 25.04.2024.

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

No representation for the appellant.

¶18

2.Mr.Venkatakrishna Kumar, learned Counsel for the Respondent

¶19

No.1 is before this Court.

¶20

3.When the case was listed before this Court on 11.06.2025 , this Court observed as follows:-

¶21

“Mr.G.Sivashankaran, learned

¶22

Counsel for the appellant and Mr.Ashok Chakravarthy, learned Counsel for the first respondent are before this Court.

¶23

2.Learned Counsel for the appellant reported 'no instructions'. To that effect, he has filed a Memo dated 11.06.2025.

¶24

3.In view of the Memo filed by the learned Counsel for the appellant, Registry is directed to print the name of the appellant in the cause list and list the matter on 30.06.2025”.

¶25

2/4

¶26

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

¶27

A.S.No. 476 of 2017

¶28

4.Despite name printed, the sole appellant did not appear before this Court. The appellant was called absent. No representation for the appellant. Hence, this Appeal Suit is dismissed for default. Considering the relationship between the parties there shall be no order as to costs.

07.07.2025

MSM

The XV Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.

¶33

3/4

¶34

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

¶35