Dismissed¶39

Nannan and Another v. Radhakrishnan and Anaother

Madras HC2 Apr 2026SA/1080/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal dismissed for non-prosecution; appellants absent and counsel reported 'no instructions'; death of 1st Appellant Kaliyaperumal recorded; matter earlier listed 'For Dismissal'; Madras High Court; S.A.NO.1080 OF 2005; Section 100 CPC; impugned decree in A.S.No.44 of 2003 confirming O.S.No.603 of 1990; Tiruvannamalai; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

None; the Second Appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution and there is no order as to costs. ¶39

Nannan and Another Vs Radhakrishnan and Anaother — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

S.A.NO.1080 OF 2005

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED :02/04/2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

¶6

S.A.NO.1080 OF 2005

¶7

1.Nannan

¶8

2.N.Alliyammal @ Rani ...Appellants/Appellants Defendants

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.Radhakrishnan

¶11

2.Lalithammal ...Respondents/Respondents/ Plaintiffs 2 & 3

¶12

PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated March 31, 2005 made in A.S.No.44 of 2003 on the file of the District

¶13

Judge, Tiruvannamalai, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated April 03, 2003 made in O.S.No.603 of 1990 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruvannamalai.

¶14

For Appellants : No appearance For Respondent-1 : Mr.K.Ranjith Kumar for Mr.R.Karthikeyan For Respondents-2 : Insufficient address

¶15

Page No.1 of 5

¶16

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

¶17

S.A.NO.1080 OF 2005

¶18

JUDG MENT

¶19

Daily Order dated March 05 , 2026 reads thus:

¶20

“Mr.S.T.Bharath Gowtham representing Mr.T.R.Rajaraman, Counsel on record for the Appellants and Mr.Inbamaran representing Mr.R.Karthikeyan, Counsel on record for the 1st Respondent are before this Court.

¶21

2.Representing Counsel for the Appellants submits that the Counsel on record for the Appellants has not received any instructions from the Appellants. Hence, he seeks two weeks time to file a memo to that effect.

¶22

3.Request acceded to.

¶23

4.List the matter on 26.03.2026.”

¶24

2.Daily Order dated March 26, 2026 reads thus:

¶25

“Mr.B.T.Bharath Gowtham, representing Mr.P.R.Supraja, Counsel on record for the Appellants and Mr.R.Karthikeyan, Counsel for the Respondent No.1 are before this Court.

¶26

2.Representing Counsel for the Appellants submits that the 1st Appellant – Kaliyaperumal passed away and he has no instructions from the legal representatives of the deceased 1st Appellant. Hence, he reports “No instructions”. He seeks time to file necessary Memo before this Court to that effect. His submission is recorded.

¶27

Page No.2 of 5

¶28

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

¶29

S.A.NO.1080 OF 2005

¶30

3.In view of the submission, this Second Appeals is adjourned to 27.03.2026 for filing a Memo.”

¶31

3.Daily Order dated March 27 , 2026 reads thus:

¶32

“No representation for the Appellants.

¶33

2.List the matter on April 2, 2026 under the cause list caption “For Dismissal”.

¶34

Note: Registry is directed to print the name of the Appellants 2 to 10 and list the same on April 2, 2026.”

¶35

4.The Appellants were called absent.

¶36

5.Mr.K.Ranjith Kumar representing Mr.R.Karthikeyan, Counsel on

¶37

record for the 1^st Respondent is before this Court.

¶38

6.Despite sufficient opportunities given, the Appellants did not

¶39

choose to appear and argue the Second Appeal. Under these circumstances, this Court has no other option except to dismiss the Second Appeal for non-prosecution. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

02/04/2026

¶41