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.

Sivaraj, Vs Shanthi — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Home
Madras HC
2025
Sivaraj, Vs ShanthiSivaraj, v. Shanthi

Dismissed¶19

Sivaraj, v. Shanthi

Madras HC17 Apr 2025CMP(MD)/14726/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay 99 days; petition to set aside dismissal of second appeal for non-prosecution; CMP(MD)No.14726 of 2023 in SA(MD)No.502 of 2022; second appeal never admitted; repeated non-representation by appellants' counsel (Prasanna Rajadurai; S. Palanivelayudham); originating suit OS.No.3 of 2014 Principal District Munsif Kumbakonam - permanent injunction decreed for plaintiffs; first appeal AS.No.71 of 2018 Principal Sub Judge Kumbakonam dismissed 28.03.2022; appellants claimed to be cultivating tenants; Madras High Court; Justice B. Pugalandhi; decided 24.09.2024; no costs or quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

In view of the appellants' persistent failure to prosecute the never-admitted second appeal, and the continued absence of any representation for the petitioners/appellants even in the condonation petition (including on 11.09.2024 and 18.09.2024), the Court was not inclined to entertain the civil miscellaneous petition and dismissed it.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 99 days in filing the petition to set aside the dismissal order dated 31.03.2023 passed in SA(MD)No.502 of 2022 ought to be condoned and the civil miscellaneous petition entertained.

Court's answer

In view of the appellants' persistent failure to prosecute the never-admitted second appeal, and the continued absence of any representation for the petitioners/appellants even in the condonation petition (including on 11.09.2024 and 18.09.2024), the Court was not inclined to entertain the civil miscellaneous petition and dismissed it.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Condonation of delay refused; CMP dismissed. The Madras High Court (B. Pugalandhi, J.) dismissed CMP(MD)No.14726 of 2023 in SA(MD)No.502 of 2022, in which the defendants-appellants sought condonation of a 99-day delay in filing a petition to set aside the dismissal of their second appeal for non-prosecution by order dated 31.03.2023. The second appeal, filed on 29.04.2022 against the concurrent findings of the courts below (suit OS.No.3 of 2014, Principal District Munsif, Kumbakonam, decreed in favour of the plaintiffs with permanent injunction; appeal AS.No.71 of 2018, Principal Sub Judge, Kumbakonam, dismissed by judgment and decree dated 28.03.2022), was never admitted and the appellants repeatedly failed to appear. Even in the condonation petition there was no representation on 11.09.2024 and 18.09.2024, and on 24.09.2024 the Court held it was not inclined to entertain the application and dismissed the civil miscellaneous petition.

A

CMP(MD)No.14726 of 2023

CMP(MD)No.14726 of 2023 in SA(MD)No.502 of 2022

B.PUGALENDHI,J.

This civil miscellaneous petition is filed to condone the delay of 99 days in filing the petition to set aside the dismissal order dated 31.03.2023 passed in SA(MD)No.502 of 2022.

2.This second appeal was filed by the defendants in the suit as against the concurrent findings of the courts below in OS.No.3 of 2014 and AS.No.71 of 2018. The respondents / plaintiffs have filed the suit in OS.No.3 of 2014 before the learned Principal District Munsif, Kumbakonam seeking permanent injunction restraining the appellants / defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. The suit was decreed in their favour and the appeal preferred by these appellants before the learned Principal Sub Judge, Kumbakonam in AS.No.71 of 2018 was also dismissed by judgment and decree dated 28.03.2022.

3.When this second appeal was listed for admission on 28.07.2022 a

request was made on behalf of the appellants and therefore the appeal was adjourned by two weeks. Thereafter the appeal was listed on 15.03.2023 on

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

1/4

CMP(MD)No.14726 of 2023

that day there was no representation on the side of the appellants. Therefore, this Court directed the Registry to list the case under the caption for dismissal on 17.03.2023. On 17.03.2023 a representation was made on behalf of the appellants that a new counsel has entered appearance for the appellants namely one Prasanna Rajadurai and therefore at his request the case was adjourned to 21.03.2023. On 21.03.2023 a representation has been made on behalf of the appellants that the case was wrongly listed on 21.03.2023 instead of 31.03.2023. Therefore, it was adjourned to 31.03.2023. Even on 31.03.2023 the learned Counsel for the appellants did not proceed with the second appeal and represented that their vakalath has been returned by the Registry. Considering this attitude of the appellants in not prosecuting the appeal, this Court by order dated 31.03.2023 has dismissed the second appeal for non-prosecution.

4.This present petition has been filed with a delay of 99 days in filing the petition to set aside the judgment dated 31.03.2023. Even in this petition there was no proper representation on 11.09.2024. Considering the earlier orders passed by this Court dated 31.03.2023, this Court was not inclined to entertain this petition, however, at the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioners / appellants, it was adjourned to 18.09.2024. Even on 18.09.2024 there was no representation for the appellants and therefore, Registry was

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

2/4

CMP(MD)No.14726 of 2023

directed to list the matter under the caption for dismissal. Today a representation has been made by the learned Counsel Mr.S.Palanivelayudham that the learned Counsel on record is out of station.

The representing Counsel is also not equipped with the second appeal.

5.This Court perused the materials placed on record.

6.These appellants claiming to be the cultivating tenants have interfered with the possession of the respondents / plaintiffs and therefore, the respondents have filed the above suit for permanent injunction. The trial Court and the first appellate Court have elaborately discussed the matter and granted injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. Though the appellants have preferred the second appeal on 29.04.2022 as against concurrent findings of the Courts below, the appellants have not taken steps to prosecute the second appeal. This second appeal was not even admitted and also was dismissed for non prosecution. Even in this petition there was no representation for the petitioners / appellants. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this application. Accordingly this civil miscellaneous petition is dismissed.

24.09.2024

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

3/4

CMP(MD)No.14726 of 2023

B.PUGALENDHI,J.

DSK

CMP(MD)No.14726 of 2023 in SA(MD)No.502 of 2022

24.09.2024

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

4/4

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the delay of 99 days in filing the petition to set aside the dismissal order dated 31.03.2023 passed in SA(MD)No.502 of 2022 ought to be condoned and the civil miscellaneous petition entertained.¶4
The court held
In view of the appellants' persistent failure to prosecute the never-admitted second appeal, and the continued absence of any representation for the petitioners/appellants even in the condonation petition (including on 11.09.2024 and 18.09.2024), the Court was not inclined to entertain the civil miscellaneous petition and dismissed it.ratio¶19

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 31.03.2023 dismissing the second appeal SA(MD)No.502 of 2022 for non-prosecution¶11
Madras High Court (this Court) · 31.03.2023
Prior proceeding
Suit OS.No.3 of 2014 filed by the respondents/plaintiffs before the Principal District Munsif, Kumbakonam seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession of the suit schedule property¶5
Prior proceeding
Suit OS.No.3 of 2014 decreed in favour of the plaintiffs¶5
Prior proceeding
Appeal AS.No.71 of 2018 preferred by the appellants before the Principal Sub Judge, Kumbakonam was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 28.03.2022, confirming the concurrent findings¶5
Prior proceeding
Second appeal SA(MD)No.502 of 2022 filed by the appellants on 29.04.2022 against the concurrent findings; it was never admitted and the appellants took no steps to prosecute it, with repeated non-representation on 15.03.2023, 17.03.2023, 21.03.2023 and 31.03.2023¶19
Prior proceeding
Second appeal dismissed for non-prosecution by order dated 31.03.2023, prompting the present CMP for condonation of 99 days' delay in filing the petition to set aside that order¶4

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Petitioners / Appellants (defendants in OS.No.3 of 2014)¶5
S. Palanivelayudham, Prasanna Rajadurai
respondent
Respondents / Plaintiffs¶5

Coram

AI extract

B. Pugalandhiauthor¶3

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 17 Apr 2025 · April
Registered: 26 Oct 2023
Case no.: CMP(MD)/14726/2023
CNR: HCMD011184842023
Bench: K.k. Ramakrishnan
Disposal: ALLOWED
Case type: CMP(MD)

Similar cases

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

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from K.k. Ramakrishnan

R. Balasubramanian Vs R.B. Rani Alias Seethalakshmi
16 Apr 2025
Ramayee Vs Ramasamy (Died)
15 Apr 2025
B.Dhanuskodi Naicker (Died), Umamaheswari (Died), D. Vijayaramu (Died), 1. Chandrasekaran, Vs S.R.Rukmani
15 Apr 2025
Sivaraj, Vs Shanthi
17 Apr 2025
Sivaraj, Vs Shanthi
17 Apr 2025
The Additional Superintendent Vs G.Elangovan
21 Apr 2025

Cite this judgement

Sivaraj, v. Shanthi, CMP(MD)/14726/2023 (MAD), decided on 17 April 2025.

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

Procedural history6

Order dated 31.03.2023 dismissing the second appeal SA(MD)No.502 of 2022 for non-prosecutionMadras High Court (this Court) · 31.03.2023
Suit OS.No.3 of 2014 filed by the respondents/plaintiffs before the Principal District Munsif, Kumbakonam seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession of the suit schedule property
Suit OS.No.3 of 2014 decreed in favour of the plaintiffs

View full history

Bench / Coram

B. Pugalandhi

Parties & counsel