Dismissed¶25

K.Maiyan v. 1.VIMALA Dharmalingam

Madras HC10 Jan 2025CS/209/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; C.S.No.209 of 2002; Abdul Quddhose J.; decision 10.01.2025; civil suit dismissed for non-prosecution; plaintiff absent / no appearance; suit of year 2002; recovery of Rs.16,66,000 with interest at 24% p.a. from 1.1.2001; permanent injunction over Flats A-22, B-23, B-25, B-26, B-27, Yamuna Homes, Parameswari Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-20; Additional Master-I reference; earlier order dated 13.12.2024; Order VII Rule 1 CPC; Order IV Rule 1 OS Rules; no costs; no precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

Given the plaintiff's repeated non-representation and that the suit is of the year 2002, the Court inferred that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit. ¶25

K.Maiyan Vs 1.VIMALA Dharmalingam — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

C.S.No.209 of 2002

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 10.01.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

C.S.No.209 of 2002

¶7

K.Maiyyan ...Plaintiff

¶8

-Vs-

¶9

1.Vimala Dharmalingam 2.S.Dharmalingam 3.Joseph Isaac

¶10

4.Irudayaswamy

¶11

5.K.Thilagavathy

¶12

6.K.Prasad

¶13

...Defendants

¶14

Prayer:- This suit is filed under Order VII Rule I CPC read with Order IV Rule 1 of OS Rules, seeking;

¶15

i) to direct the defendants to pay to plaintiff a sum of Rs.16,66,000/along with interest at 24% p.a. from 1.1.2001 on which date, the defendants admittedly collected the said sum from third parties till the date of payment;

¶16

(ii) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant's, their men, agents, servants and legal heirs or any one claiming any right under the defendants, from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and right over the Five Flats viz. A-22, B-23, B-25, B-26 and B-27 in the third Floor of Yamuna Homes, Parameswari Nagar, 4th Street, Adyar, Chennai-20, as described in the Schedule by alienating or encumbering or attempting to enter into any arrangement/agreement of sale in respect of the said flats with any third parties, either directly or indirectly; and

¶17

iii) directing the defendants to pay the costs of the suit.

¶18

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

¶19

1/3

¶20

C.S.No.209 of 2002

¶21

For Plaintiff : No Appearance For D5 & D6 : Mr.R.Srinivas

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

There is no representation on the side of the plaintiff. The learned

¶24

Additional Master-I has placed this matter before this Court, since there was no representation on the side of the plaintiff on 03.09.2024 for recording the plaintiff's side evidence. This Court, in its earlier order dated 13.12.2024, has also recorded the same. In the said order dated 13.12.2024, it was also made clear that if proper steps are not taken to examine the plaintiff's witness on or before the next hearing date, this Court will be constrained to dismiss the suit for non-prosecution.

¶25

Since there is no representation on the side of the plaintiff once again and in view of the fact that the suit is of the year 2002, it can now be inferred that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit. Therefore, the suit is dismissed for non-prosecution. No Costs.

10.01.2025

rkm

ABDUL QUDDHOSE,J.

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

¶30

2/3

¶31

C.S.No.209 of 2002