Dismissed

Subbulakshmi v. S.Rathinam

Madras HC10 Jun 2025CMP(MD)/10175/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench dismissed a civil miscellaneous petition for leave to file an appeal suit. The court refused to adjudicate the withdrawal memo filed by the petitioner's counsel, citing the petitioner's unavailability and failure to contact the counsel.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed as it is liable to be dismissed due to ineffective withdrawal of appearance by the petitioner's counsel.

Subbulakshmi Vs S.Rathinam — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

CMP(MD). No.10175 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

¶4

Tuesday, the Tenth day of June Two Thousand and Twenty Five

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN

¶7

CMP(MD). No.10175 of 2022 in AS(MD)SR.No.32258 of 2022

¶8

Subbulakshmi

¶9

... Petitioner /Appellant

¶10

¶11

1 S.Rathinam

¶12

2 S.Palthai (Died).

¶13

3 T.Kalimuthu,

¶14

4 K.Latha,

¶15

5 K.Ramya,

¶16

6 K.Senthilkumar,

¶17

7 Arumugam,

¶18

8 Ganesan,

¶19

9 Paramasivan,

¶20

1/6

¶21

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

¶22

CMP(MD). No.10175 of 2022

10 Bhuvaneswari,

11 Dayanithi,

12 Manjula,

13 Krishnan (Died).

14 Selvam,

15 Balasubramanian,

16 Sivakumar,

17 Sumathi,

18 N.Ponraj,

19 Ramasamy,

20 Arunkumar,

21 Rajendran,

22 Subramanian,

23 S.Marimuthu,

24 Nishanth,

25 Arunasalam,

26 Thirumalaiselvan,

27 R.Ponraj,

28 Selvaraj,

2/6

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

¶44

CMP(MD). No.10175 of 2022

¶45

29 Devendran,

¶46

30 Sasikumar,

¶47

31 Esakki Asari, 32 Mariammal, 33 Puthiyavan, 34 Alexandar,

35 Sukumaran,

36 Poongani,

37 Sermakani,

38 State of Tamil Nadu, Through the District Collector. Tirunelveli District.

¶52

... Respondents

¶53

Prayer in CMP(MD). No.10175 of 2022 :-

¶54

Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 151 of CPC to grant leave to file Appeal Suit as against the judgment and decree dated 21-12-2021 made in O.S.No.35 of 2013 on the file of the Learned Additional District Judge,Tenkasi.

¶55

Prayer in AS(MD)SR.No.32258 of 2022:-

¶56

This Petition filed under Section 96 and Order 41 of CPC to call for records relating to the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2021 made in O.S.No.35 of 2013 on the file of the Additional District Judge (FTC), Tenkasi and set aside the same allow the First Appeal.

¶57

3/6

¶58

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

¶59

CMP(MD). No.10175 of 2022

¶60

ORDER:- This Petition coming on for orders on this day and upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. C. Arumugam, Advocate for the 7^th respondent, this Court made the following order:

¶61

'This petition has been filed to grant leave to file Appeal Suit as against the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2021 made in O.S.No.35 of 2013 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Tenkasi.

¶62

When the matter taken up for hearing on 20.01.2023, the learned counsel for the petitioner filed a withdrawal memo dated 05.01.2023 before this Court, wherein paragraph No.12 reads as follows:-

¶63

“2. It is submitted that this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 14.12.2022 ordered notice to the respondents returnable by 20.01.2023 and this Hon'ble Court directed to take private notice and to file proof of service on or before 10.01.2023. It is submitted that while the petitioner's counsel tried to contact over mobile on 26.12.2022 at 2.00 p.m., the petitioner/appellant blocked the Petitioner's Counsel's Name. Moreover, while contacting the petitioner/appellant in the last week of November 2022 also, the petitioner/appellant did not pick up the mobile. Hence, the petitioner's Counsel sent a letter to the petitioner/appellant on 16.12.2022 and though it

¶64

4/6

¶65

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

¶66

CMP(MD). No.10175 of 2022

¶67

has been properly addressed, the letter was returned on the ground of “insufficient address”.

¶68

Since the petitioner has not contacted his counsel and also blocked his name

¶69

in the phone, this Court is not inclined to keep the petition without adjudication on the basis of the memo of withdrawal of appearance filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶70

Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed.

¶71

Sd/-

¶72

Assistant Registrar (C.O)

¶73

// True Copy //

¶74

/2025 Sub Assistant Registrar (CS – I/ II / III /IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶75

¶76

The Additional District Judge, Tenkasi.

¶77

The District Collector, Tirunelveli District.

¶78

Copy to:

¶79

The Section Officer, Judicial Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai

¶80

5/6

¶81

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

¶82

CMP(MD). No.10175 of 2022

¶83

ORDER DATED : 10/06/2025 ========================== ORDER ========================== CMP(MD). No.10175 of 2022 in AS(MD)SR.No.32258 of 2022 Giving direction and etc. as stated within.

¶84

AVK/11.07.2025 6P/4C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023

¶85

6/6

¶86

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

Subbulakshmi v. S.Rathinam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subbulakshmi v. S.Rathinam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Parvathavarthini alias Gomathi Vs R.Muniswaran

J.G.Punitha Edward Vs Edward Savaridass

M.Gowsalya Vs K. Daniel Gideon Raj

S.Diviyamani Vs a.MUruganantham

Nivetha Vs Shenbagaraajan

Indira Vs Karthik