Dismissed¶93

Mr.Vijayanand Choudhary HUF v. M.Saravanan

Madras HC20 Aug 2025CS/597/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal for non-prosecution; plaintiffs absent and unrepresented; suits not diligently prosecuted; Madras High Court civil suits CS No. 597 of 2019 and CS No. 571 of 2019; money-recovery claims of Rs.3.88 crore and Rs.4.30 crore with 24% interest demands; defendants set ex parte; memo filed by defence counsel on plaintiffs' non-response; no order as to costs; no precedent engaged.

What did the court decide?

The Court found that the plaintiffs are not diligent in prosecuting the suits, as they neither appeared personally nor through counsel when the matters were called. ¶90

Mr.Vijayanand Choudhary HUF Vs M.Saravanan — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CS Nos. 597 & 571 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 20-08-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

C.S.No.597 of 2019

¶7

and

¶8

C.S.No.571 of 2019

¶9

Mr.Vijayanand Choudhary HUF

¶10

Rep.by L.Vijayanand, No.12, Friends Avenue, Arumbakkam, Ch-106

¶11

2. Banupriya

¶12

No.12, Friends Avenue, Arumbakkam, Ch-106

¶13

Vijayanand Choudhary

¶14

No.12, Friends Avenue, Arumbakkam, Ch-106

¶15

Sunil Choudhary and Sons HUF Rep.by Sunil Choudhary No.12, Friends Avenue, Arumbakkam, Ch-106

¶16

Neelam Choudhary

¶17

No.12, Friends Avenue, Arumbakkam, Ch-106

¶18

6. Sunil Choudhary

¶19

No.12, Friends Avenue, Arumbakkam, Ch-106

¶20

J.L.Choudhary and Sons HUF Rep.by Lalaram Choudhary, No.12,

¶21

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

¶22

CS Nos. 597 & 571 of 2019

¶23

Friends Avenue, Arumbakkam, Ch-106

¶24

J.Lalaram Choudhary No.12, Friends Avenue, Arumbakkam, Ch-106

¶25

Jamunabai Choudhary No.12, Friendgs Avenue, Arumbakkam, Ch-106

Plaintiff(s)

1. M.Saravanan

No.5/135, Bakthan Street, Koman Nagar, Thaiyur, Kancheepuram Dist.

¶30

2.Parimala

¶31

No.5/135, Bakthan Street, Koman Nagar, Thaiyur, Kancheepuram Dist.

¶32

3.M.Rajdurai No.5/135, Bakthan Street, Koman Nagar, Thaiyur, Kancheepuram Dist.

¶33

4.K.Prabhu

¶34

No.5/135, Bakthan Street, Koman Nagar, Thaiyur, Kancheepuram Dist.

¶35

5.Suresh Stationeries Rep.by Ramakrishnan, No.5/135, Bakthan Street, Koman Nagar, Thaiyur, Kancheepuram Dist.

¶36

6.Mariappan

¶37

No.5/135, Bakthan Street, Koman

¶38

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

¶39

CS Nos. 597 & 571 of 2019

¶40

Nagar, Thaiyur, Kancheepuram Dist.

¶41

7.Bhuvaraghavan No.5/135, Bakthan Street, Koman Nagar, Thaiyur, Kancheepuram Dist.

¶42

8.Ramakrishnan No.5/135, Bakthan Street, Koman Nagar, Thaiyur, Kancheepuram Dist.

¶43

9.M.Saranraj No.5/135, Bakthan Street, Koman Nagar, Thaiyur, Kancheepuram Dist.

¶44

Defendant(s)

¶45

CS No. 571 of 2019

¶46

J.Lalaram Choudhary S/o.Jeetharam, No.12, Friends Avenue, Arumbakkam, Ch-106

¶47

2.Jamunabai Choudhary W/o.K.Lalaram Choudhary, S/o.Jeetharam, No.12, Friends Avenue, Arumbakkam, Ch-106

¶48

3.Sunil L.Choudhary S/o.K.Lalaram Choudhary, S/o.Jeetharam, No.12, Friends Avenue, Arumbakkam, Ch-106

¶49

4.Vijay anand Choudhary S/o.K.Lalaram Choudhary, S/o.Jeetharam, No.12, Friends Avenue, Arumbakkam, Ch-106

¶50

Plaintiff(s)

¶51

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

¶52

CS Nos. 597 & 571 of 2019

¶53

¶54

1. S.Ramakrishnan

¶55

S/o.Subramani, No.5/135, Bakthan Street, Koman Nagar, Thaiyur Village, Kancheepuram Dist.

¶56

2.S.Mariappan

¶57

S/o.Subramani, No.5/135, Bakthan Street, Koman Nagar, Thaiyur Village, Kancheepuram Dist.

¶58

3.M.Saravanan

¶59

No.5/135, Bakthan Street, Koman Nagar, Thaiyur Village, Kancheepuram Dist.

¶60

Defendant(s)

¶61

CS No. 597 of 2019

¶62

PRAYER

¶63

Plaint filed under Order VII Rule (1) of Civil Procedure Code read with Order IV Rule 1 of O.S. Rules, praying to pass Judgement and Decree against the Defendants:-

¶64

(a) Directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.3,88,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crores Eighty Eight Lakhs only) to the plaintiffs, with the interest at 24% per annum on Rs.2,04,00,000/- from 07.09.2019 to till the date of realization by the plaintiffs.

¶65

(b) to award the cost of the suit and

¶66

(c) For such further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

¶67

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

¶68

CS Nos. 597 & 571 of 2019

¶69

CS No. 571 of 2019

¶70

PRAYER

¶71

Plaint filed under Order VII Rule (1) of Civil Procedure Code read with Order IV Rule 1 of O.S. Rules, praying to pass Judgment and Decree against the Defendants:-

¶72

(a) Directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.4,30,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores Thirty Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) to the plaintiffs, with the interest at 24% per annum on Rs.3,43,00,000/- from 25.08.2019 to till the date of realization by the plaintiffs.

¶73

(b) to award the cost of the suit.

¶74

CS No. 597 of 2019

¶75

For Plaintiff(s): No appearance

¶76

For Defendant(s): Mr.V.R.Appaswamee (For D8) Mr.Na.Malai Saravanan (For D1 to D3, D6 & D9) D4, D5 & D7 – Set ex parte on 21.08.2024

¶77

C.S.No.571 of 2019

¶78

For Plaintiff(s): No appearance

¶79

For Defendant(s): Mr.V.R.Appaswamee (For R1) Mr.Na.Malai Saravanan (For R2) D3 – Set ex parte on 17.11.2023

¶80

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

¶81

CS Nos. 597 & 571 of 2019

¶82

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶83

A memo had been filed by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs, stating that in spite of written communications to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs in both the suits have not responded to her and that along with the

¶84

memo, acknowledgment cards sent by her was filed.

¶85

Recording the said memo, this Court directed the Registry to delete the

¶86

name of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and print the name of the plaintiffs. The matter was again listed on 18.08.2025 by showing the names of

¶87

the plaintiffs in the cause list. They were neither present before this Court nor represented by any counsel.

¶88

Hence, the matter was listed under the caption “For Dismissal” today.

¶89

Even today, when the matter was called, there was no representation either by

¶90

the plaintiffs themselves or by any counsel. They have been called absent. Hence, this Court finds that the plaintiffs are not diligent in prosecuting the suits.

¶91

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

¶92

CS Nos. 597 & 571 of 2019

¶93