Dismissed¶25

N.v.Sasikumar v. S.Sakthivel

Madras HC8 Aug 2025SA(MD)/254/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal of a Section 100 CPC second appeal for non-prosecution (counsel reported no instructions with endorsement recorded). Court: Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; Judge: G. Arul Murugan, J.; decision date 08.08.2025. Impugned: A.S.No.40 of 2016 judgment/decree dated 06.11.2017 (Fast Track, Mahila Court, Dindigul) reversing O.S.No.431 of 2011 judgment/decree dated 01.02.2016 (Principal Sub Judge, Dindigul). Parties: Appellants N.V.Sasikumar, P.Vijayakumar, Maheswari, Azhagu Pillai (counsel Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar) v. Respondents S.Sakthivel (Mr.B.Jameel Arasu), Oyyan, Poosam (Mr.S.Vinayak) and P.Ramkumar. Result: appeal dismissed, no costs, connected C.M.P.(MD).No.4729 of 2019 closed.

What did the court decide?

None; the Second Appeal was dismissed for want of instructions, with no order as to costs and the connected C.M.P.(MD).No.4729 of 2019 closed.

N.v.Sasikumar Vs S.Sakthivel — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

S.A.(MD).No.254 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 08.08.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

¶6

S.A.(MD).No.254 of 2019 and C.M.P.(MD).No.4729 of 2019

1.N.V.Sasikumar

2.P.Vijayakumar

3.Maheswari

4.Azhagu Pillai ... Appellants/Respondents 4 to 7/ Defendants 4 to 7

¶11

Vs.

¶12

1.S.Sakthivel ... 1^st Respondent/Appellant/ Plaintiff

¶13

2.Oyyan

¶14

3.Poosam

¶15

4.P.Ramkumar ... Respondents 2 to 4/Respondents 1 to 3/ Defendants 1 to 3

¶16

PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to call for the records and set aside the judgment and decree dated 06.11.2017 in A.S.No.40 of 2016 on the file of the Fast Track, Mahila Court,

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

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

¶19

S.A.(MD).No.254 of 2019

¶20

Dindigul, reversing the judgment and decree dated 01.02.2016 in O.S.No.431 of 2011, on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Dindigul and all this Second Appeal with costs throughout.

¶21

For Appellants : Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar For R-1 : Mr.B.Jameel Arasu For R-2 & R-3 : Mr.S.Vinayak

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The learned counsel for the appellants submits that they have sent written

¶24

notice to the appellants for instructions. However, there is no response. Hence, the learned counsel reports no instructions and he has also made necessary endorsement to that effect.

¶25