Dismissed¶24

Mohammed Yacoob v. Mrs.J.Rani @ Idhayarani

Madras HC7 Jan 2025SA/1059/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution; no instructions from appellants; counsel memo dated 07.01.2025; liberty reserved to apply for revival in accordance with law; filed under Section 100 Civil Procedure Code; Madras High Court; S.A.No.1059 of 2010; challenge to judgment and decree dated 07.11.2007 in A.S.No.473 of 2007 reversing decree in O.S.No.5835 of 2002; respondents include CMDA and Corporation of Chennai; no costs.

What did the court decide?

There is no useful purpose in keeping the Second Appeal pending indefinitely, since learned counsel for the appellants has no instructions despite several communications. ¶21

Mohammed Yacoob Vs Mrs.J.Rani @ Idhayarani — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

S.A.No.1059 of 2010

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 07.01.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

S.A.No.1059 of 2010

¶7

Mohammed Yacoob

¶8

Razia Banu ... Appellants

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.J.Rani @ Idhayarani

¶11

The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Office at Thalamuthu Natarajan Maaligai, Egmore, Chennai – 8.

¶12

The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Building, Chennai – 600 003. ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code to allow this appeal and set aside the judgement and decree dated 07.11.2007 passed by the 3^rd Additional City Civil Judge in A.S.No.473 of 2007 reversing the judgement and decree passed by the XVIII Assistant City

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/4

¶15

S.A.No.1059 of 2010

¶16

Civil Judge in O.S.No.5835 of 2002 and dismiss the suit with costs.

¶17

For Appellants : M/s. Pathy and Pathy For Respondents : Mr. P.Gopalan (for R1) Ms. P.Veena Suresh (for R2) Mr. Mohammed Gouse (for R3) *****

¶18

JUDGEMENT

¶19

When the matter was listed on 06.01.2025, there was no representation

¶20

on behalf of the appellants. Therefore, the matter was ordered to be listed on 07.01.2025 under the caption “for dismissal”.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the appellants states that, despite several communications to the appellants, there are no instructions from the appellants, and he has filed a memo dated 07.01.2025 to that effect, which is placed on record. There does not appear to be any useful purpose being served in keeping the Second Appeal pending indefinitely.

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/4

¶23

S.A.No.1059 of 2010

¶24

In view of the same, the Second Appeal is dismissed for nonprosecution. It is made clear that the appellants are not precluded from applying for revival of the Second Appeal, in accordance with law. No costs.

¶25

07.01.2025

¶26

¶27

Index : Yes/No Speaking order /Non Speaking Order Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶28

¶29