Vs Thiru.Kaliyappan — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Vs Thiru.Kaliyappan — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the five Second Appeals (S.A.Nos. 2037 of 2000, 427 of 2001, 812 of 2003, 8 of 2003 and 93 of 2003) ought to be dismissed for non-prosecution, the appellants having neither rectified registry defects nor proceeded with the appeals despite sufficient opportunities and giving no representation at the hearing.

Court's answer

As the Appellants chose not to proceed with the Appeals despite sufficient opportunities and gave no representation even on the day of hearing, there was no option but to dismiss the Second Appeals, and they are dismissed for non-prosecution.

Ratio / Principle

On the dismissal, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs was made.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS — R. Sakthivel J., 06-04-2026 — Common judgment dismissing for non-prosecution five Second Appeals filed under Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: S.A.Nos. 2037 of 2000, 427 of 2001, 812 of 2003, 8 of 2003 and 93 of 2003, brought by the plaintiffs (Arokiamariyammal and Ariyabava) against the respective defendants. The appeals challenged the judgments and decrees in A.S.Nos. 79, 47, 48, 77 and 67 of 1999 (all dated August 18, 1999, Principal District Court, Coimbatore District), each confirming the decrees in O.S.Nos. 480, 475, 477, 476 and 478 of 1995 (October 30, 1998, District Munsif, Mettupalayam). Course of proceedings: posted under 'default cases' on 16.02.2024 with three weeks to rectify defects on pain of automatic cancellation; several respondents dead or dismissed by court orders dated 16.02.2024; registry noted untaken steps (note dated May 13, 2025); on 04.03.2026 adjourned to 25.03.2026 with a no-further-adjournment direction; on 25.03.2026 no representation on either side and the cases were listed under the caption 'for dismissal'. On 06.04.2026 the appellants were again absent: Held — the Second Appeals are dismissed for non-prosecution; no order as to costs. Purely procedural disposal; no question on the merits of the suits was adjudicated and no precedent is cited or discussed. (Running heads print 'S.A.No.27 of 2001', but the party block, prayer, counsel note and closing uniformly print 'S.A.No.427 of 2001'.)

S.A.Nos. 2037 of 2000, 27 of 2001, 812 of 2003, 8 of 2003 and 93 of 2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

S.A.Nos. 2037 of 2000, 427 of 2001, 812 of 2003, 8 of 2003 and 93 of 2003

S.A.No.2037 of 2000:

1.Arokiamariyammal, W/o.Late Bastin, Door No. 4/10/17, Baggiathammal Lane, Mettakarai Veethi, Mettupalayam Town, Mettupalayam Taluk. 2.Ariyabava, S/o.Thiru.Gani, Mariamman Kovil Veethi, Salem Town.

...Appellants/Appellants/Plaintiffs in all appeals

Vs

Kaliyappan, 4/10/25, Baggiathammal Lane, Mettupalayam Town, Mettupalayam Taluk.

...Respondent/Respondent/Defendant in S.A.No.2037 of 2000

1.Santhi, D/o.Thiru Gopal Nair 2.Suseela, D/o.Thiru Gopal Nair

__________ Page1 of 7

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

S.A.Nos. 2037 of 2000, 27 of 2001, 812 of 2003, 8 of 2003 and 93 of 2003

3.Thiru.Kannan @ Rajendran, S/o.Gopal Nair,

All are residing at 4/10/22, Baggiathammal Lane, Mettupalayam Town, Mettupalayam Taluk.

...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants in S.A.No.427 of 2001

1.Tmt.Kulhanthaiammal, W/o.Thiru. Subramaniam 2.Thiru. Subramanian S/o.Thiru.Palaniappan

both are residing at Door No.4/10/28,Baggiathammal Lane, Mettupalayam Town, Mettupalayam Taluk.

...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants in S.A.No.812 of 2003

Thiru Ibrahim, 4/10/14, Baggiathammal Lane, Mettupalayam Town, Mettupalayam Taluk.

...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants in S.A.No.8 of 2003

Thiru Ramakrishnan, S/o.Kandasamy, 4/10/21, Baggiathammal Lane, Mettupalayam Town, Mettupalayam Taluk.

...Respondent/Respondent/Defendant in S.A.No.93 of 2003

Page2 of 7

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

S.A.Nos. 2037 of 2000, 27 of 2001, 812 of 2003, 8 of 2003 and 93 of 2003

Prayer in S.A.No.2037 of 2000: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.79 of 1999 dated August 18, 1999 on the file of Principal District Court, Coimbatore District, confirming the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.480 of 1995 dated October 30, 1998 on the file of District Munsif, Mettupalayam District.

Prayer in S.A.No.427 of 20 01 : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.47 of 1999 dated August 18, 1999 on the file of Principal District Court, Coimbatore District, confirming the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.475 of 1995 dated October 30, 1998 on the file of District Munsif, Mettupalayam District.

Prayer in S.A.No.812 of 20 03 : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.48 of 1999 dated August 18, 1999 on the file of Principal District Court, Coimbatore District, confirming the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.477 of 1995 dated October 30, 1998 on the file of District Munsif, Mettupalayam District.

Prayer in S.A.No.8 of 20 03 : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.77 of 1999 dated August 18, 1999 on the file of Principal District Court, Coimbatore District, confirming the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.476 of 1995 dated October 30, 1998 on the file of District Munsif, Mettupalayam District.

__________ Page3 of 7

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

S.A.Nos. 2037 of 2000, 27 of 2001, 812 of 2003, 8 of 2003 and 93 of 2003

Prayer in S.A.No.93 of 20 03 : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.67 of 1999 dated August 18, 1999 on the file of Principal District Court, Coimbatore District, confirming the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.478 of 1995 dated October 30, 1998 on the file of District Munsif, Mettupalayam District.

For Appellant(s) : No appearance in all appeals For Respondent(s): Sole Respondent – died Dismissed vide Court order dated 16.02.2024 in S.A.No.2037 of 2000 R2 – Served – No appearance R1 and R3 – Dismissed vide Court order dated 16.02.2024 in S.A.No.427 of 2001 R1 and R2 – Served – No appearance in S.A.No.812 of 2003 Served – No appearance in S.A.No.8 of 2003 Sole Respondent – died Dismissed vide Court order dated 16.02.2024 in S.A.No.93 of 2000

COMMON JUDGMENT

Daily Order dated February 16, 2024 reads thus:

“The case is posted under the caption “default cases” for

not complying with the defects.

2.In the interest of justice three weeks time is granted to the

appellant(s) to rectify the defects.

__________ Page4 of 7

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

S.A.Nos. 2037 of 2000, 27 of 2001, 812 of 2003, 8 of 2003 and 93 of 2003

3.The learned counsel for the appellant(s) is directed to

rectify the defects within the time stipulated above, failing which, this Second Appeal will automatically stand cancelled.”

2.Registry’s note dated May 13, 2025 reads thus:

“Steps not taken till 15.03.2024 regarding sole respondent in S.A.No.93 of 2003.

S.S. Petition and Affidavit not filed till 15.03.2024 regarding

R1 and R3 in S.A.No.427 of 2001.

Steps not taken till 15.03.2024 regarding sole respondent in S.A.No.2037 of 2000.”

3.Daily Order dated March 4, 2026 reads thus:

“Mr.P.Sathish, representing Mr.B.Harikrishnan, Counsel on

record for the Appellant in all the appeal suits is before this Court.

2.No representation for the respondents.

3.With a view to adhere the principles of natural justice fully

and in the interest of justice, this Second Appeal is adjourned to 25.03.2026. It is made clear that no further adjournment will be granted on that day.”

Page5 of 7

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

S.A.Nos. 2037 of 2000, 27 of 2001, 812 of 2003, 8 of 2003 and 93 of 2003

4.Daily Order dated March 25, 2026 reads thus:

“No representation on either side.

2.List these cases on 06.04.2026 under the cause list caption

“for dismissal”.

5.Despite sufficient opportunities have been given, the Appellants have

chosen not to proceed with the Appeals. Today also, no representation for the Appellants. Hence, there is no other option, except to dismiss these Second Appeals. Accordingly, these Second Appeals are dismissed for non prosecution. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

06-04-2026

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MPS

To

1.The Principal District Court, Coimbatore District,

2.The District Munsif, Mettupalayam District.

3.The Section Officer, V.R. Section, Madras High Court.

__________ Page6 of 7

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

S.A.Nos. 2037 of 2000, 27 of 2001, 812 of 2003, 8 of 2003 and 93 of 2003

R.SAKTHIVEL J.

MPS

S.A.Nos. 2037 of 2000, 427 of 2001, 812 of 2003, 8 of 2003 and 93 of 2003

06-04-2026

__________ Page7 of 7

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