Allowed¶30

Chandra, v. T.Sathiya

Madras HC6 Feb 2026CMP/11315/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court allows CMP No.11315 of 2025 under Order XLI Rule 19 CPC and restores Second Appeal S.A.No.241 of 2017, which had been dismissed for non-prosecution/default on 27.03.2025 owing to inability to serve notices on Respondents 4 to 7 who evaded service; substituted service petition permitted; appeal dismissed for default; restoration of appeal; fair opportunity to prosecute appeal on merits; non-taking of steps for service of notices.

What did the court decide?

CMP No. 11315 of 2025 allowed; S.A.No.241 of 2017 restored to the file of this Court; learned counsel for the petitioner permitted to file a substituted service petition to effect service on Respondents 4 to 7; Registry directed to list the matter on 17.02.2026 along with the substituted service petition. ¶30

Chandra, Vs T.Sathiya — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Order XLI Rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeking to set aside the order dated 27.03.2025 dismissing S.A.No.241 of 2017 for non-prosecution and to restore the Second Appeal to the file of this Court, deserves to be allowed.

¶14

Court's answer

Considering the reasons stated in the affidavit and the submissions of learned counsel that the appeal was dismissed for default only on account of non-taking of steps for service of notices, and in order to afford a fair opportunity to the petitioner to prosecute the appeal on merits, the petition deserved to be allowed.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

This petition is allowed and the appeal is restored.

¶30

Key takeaways

Since the appeal was dismissed for non-taking of steps for service of notices, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to file a substituted service petition to effect service on Respondents 4 to 7.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Order XLI Rule 19, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Restoration of Second Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution. Smt. Chandra sought to set aside the Madras High Court's order dated 27.03.2025 dismissing S.A.No.241 of 2017; the dismissal had occurred because notices could not be served on Respondents 4 to 7, who allegedly evaded service, though Respondents 1 to 3 had entered appearance through counsel. The other side raised no serious objection. Finding that the appeal was dismissed for default only on account of non-taking of steps for service of notices, and to afford a fair opportunity to prosecute the appeal on merits, the Court allowed the petition, restored the appeal, permitted the appellant's counsel to file a substituted service petition for Respondents 4 to 7, and directed the Registry to list the matter on 17.02.2026 along with that petition. — P. Dhanabal J., 06-02-2026.

¶1

CMP No. 11315 of 2025 in S.A.No.241 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 06-02-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

¶6

CMP No. 11315 of 2025 in S.A. No.241 of 2017

¶7

Smt. Chandra

¶8

..Petitioner/Appellant Vs

¶9

T.Sathiya, 2. D.Rajendran 3. D.Ravi T.Senthil Kumar (died)

¶10

T.Arun, 5. T.Deepa,

¶11

Parimala

¶12

7. S.Keerthina

¶13

..Respondent(s)

¶14

Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Order XLI Rule 19 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, pleased to set aside the order of this Court dated 27.03.2025, dismissing the above S.A.No.241 of 2017 for non-prosecution and restore the Second Appeal on the file of this Court.

¶15

For Appellant : Mr. D.Rajagopal For Respondent(s): M/s. SARVABHAUMAN ASSOCIATES (for R1) M/s. D. Selvakumari (for R2 and R3) R4 to R7 – Not ready – No Appearance.

¶16

__________ Page1 of 4

¶17

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

¶18

CMP No. 11315 of 2025 in S.A.No.241 of 2017

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This application has been filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the order of this Court dated 27.03.2025, by which the S.A.No.241 of 2017 was

¶21

dismissed for non-prosecution, and to restore the said Second Appeal on the file of this Court.

¶22

By order dated 27.03.2025, this Court dismissed the appeal for non prosecution. According to the petitioner/appellant, notices had already been taken to the respondents. Respondents 1 to 3 have entered appearance through their counsel. However, notices could not be served on respondents 4 to 7, the appeal came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. It is further submitted that notices were attempted to be served on respondents 4 to 7, but they evaded service. Therefore, due to the inability to effect service, and for not taking further steps of service of notices to the respondents 4 to 7, the appeal was dismissed, necessitating the filing of the present petition before this Court.

¶23

The other side have not raised any serious objection to the allowing of this petition.

¶24

Considering the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of this petition, and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant that the appeal was dismissed for default only on account of

¶25

Page2 of 4

¶26

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

¶27

CMP No. 11315 of 2025 in S.A.No.241 of 2017

¶28

non-taking steps for service of notices, and in order to afford a fair opportunity

¶29

to the petitioner to prosecute the appeal on merits, this petition deserves to be allowed.

¶30