Dismissed¶22

P.Bharanitharan v. Vasantha

Madras HC1 Jul 2026AS/475/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; A.S.No.475 of 2019; dismissal for non-prosecution; refusal of further adjournment where appellant's counsel repeatedly not ready for arguments despite adjournments from 2022; appeal under Section 96 r/w. Order 41 Rule 1 CPC against decree dated 21.03.2019 in O.S.No.236 of 2015, III Additional District Court, Salem; no costs; connected C.M.P.No.13376 of 2019 closed; no merits decided; no precedent discussion; procedural/prothonotary value only.

What did the court decide?

The Court declined to keep the matter pending any further, as the learned counsel for the appellant was not ready for arguments even on 01.07.2026 and sought an adjournment without any valid reason, after repeated adjournments from 2022. ¶21

P.Bharanitharan Vs Vasantha — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

A.S.No.475 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 01.07.2026

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JOTHIRAMAN

¶7

A.S.No.475 of 2019

¶8

and

¶9

C.M.P.No.13376 of 2019

¶10

1.P.Bharanitharan 2.P.Sangeetha 3.P.Madhubala ... Appellants

¶11

Vs.

¶12

Vasantha ... Respondent

¶13

Prayer : Appeal filed under Section 96 r/w. Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 21.03.2019 passed in O.S.No.236 of 2015 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Salem.

¶14

For Appellants : Mr.K.Elango For Respondent : Mr.R.Parthasarathy

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

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

¶17

A.S.No.475 of 2019

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

(Judgment was delivered by N. SATHISH KUMAR, J. )

¶20

On the earlier occasion, i.e., on 29.06.2026, the matter was adjourned

¶21

at request to 01.07.2026 for arguments. However, even today, the learned counsel for the appellant is not ready to argue the matter. On a perusal of the docket sheet, this Court finds that the matter has been adjourned on several occasions from the year 2022. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to keep this matter pending any further, as the learned counsel for the appellant is not ready even today for arguments and seeks an adjournment without any valid reason.

¶22

2.Therefore, this Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs.

¶23

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶24

(N.S.K., J.) (M.J.R., J.) 01.07.2026

¶25

mkn

¶26

Internet : Yes Index : Yes / No Speaking Order / Nonspeaking order Neutral Citation : Yes / No

¶27

Page 2 of 4