Dismissed¶36

R.T.Velu v. Mrs.R.T.Rani

Madras HC10 Apr 2026SA/967/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Second Appeal No. 967 of 2003, decided 10.04.2026 by R. Sakthivelel. Dismissal for non-prosecution: appellants absent, no representation, counsel on record reported 'No Instructions'. Parties: R.T.Velu, R.T.Andal, R.T.Saradha, R.T.Chitra (appellants/defendants 3-6) v. R.T.Rani (plaintiff), S.Rajagopal, Kannu @ Devakiammal, M.Balasubramanian, B.Dhanalakshmi (respondents). Underlying chain: O.S.No.763 of 1983 (District Munsif Court, Coimbatore, decree 20.10.1997) reversed in A.S.No.63 of 1998 (Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, judgment 12.01.2001). Statute: Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. No cases cited; no costs; no monetary award.

What did the court decide?

The Appellants were called absent and there was no representation on their behalf; accordingly the Second Appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, with no costs.

R.T.Velu Vs Mrs.R.T.Rani — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10.04.2026

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVEL

¶4

Second Appeal No. 967 of 2003

¶5

1.R.T.Velu S/o.R.T.Naidu

¶6

2.R.T.Andal D/o.R.T.Naidu

¶7

3.R.T.Saradha D/o.R.T.Naidu

¶8

4.R.T.Chitra D/o.R.T.Naidu All are residing at Sinna Mettupalayam Sarvanampatti Village Via Ganapathi Coimbatore.

¶9

...Appellants/ Respondents 3 to 6/ Defendants 3 to 6

¶10

Versus

¶11

1.R.T.Rani W/o.V.Raju No.10, Nehru Nagar Kalapatty – PO Coimbatore. …1st Respondent/ Appellant/Plaintiff

¶12

2.S.Rajagopal S/o.Srinivasa Iyengar 11/211-D Easwaran Chettiar Layout, Lakshmi Foundry Road Cross Cut Road, Coimbatore-641 012.

¶13

Page Nos.1/5

¶14

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

¶15

3.Kannu @ Devakiammal W/o.Late.R.T.Naidu 11/211-E Easwaran Chetti Layout Lakshmi Foundry Road Cross Cut Road Coimbatore.

¶16

...Respondents 2&3/ Respondents 1&2/ Defendants 1&2

¶17

4.M.Balasubramanian S/o.Muthusamy 62-A, C.K.Colony New Siddhapudur Coimbatore-47.

¶18

5.B.Dhanalakshmi W/o.M.Balasubramani 62-A, C.K.Colony New Siddhapudur Coimbatore-47.

¶19

...Respondents 4&5/ Respondents 7&8

¶20

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated January 12, 2001 made in A.S.No.63 of 1998 on the file of Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated October 20, 1997 made in O.S.No.763 of 1983 on the file of District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.

¶21

Page Nos.2/5

¶22

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

¶23

For Appellants : No Appearance For RR4 and 5 : Mr.M.Aravind Subramaniam Senior Advocate

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

This Second Appeal has been filed praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated January 12, 2001 made in A.S.No.63 of 1998 on the file of Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated October 20, 1997 made in O.S.No.763 of 1983 on the file of District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.

¶26

2.Mr.M.Aravind Subramaniam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for

¶27

the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 is before the Court.

¶28

3.The daily order dated April 8, 2026 which reads thus:-

¶29

“Mr.K.Thangadurai, representing Mr.T.R.Rajaraman, Counsel on record for the Appellants is before the Court and Mr.M.Aravind Subramaniam, Counsel on record for the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 is before the Court through Video Conferencing Mode.

¶30

Page Nos.3/5

¶31

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

¶32

2.Mr.K.Thangadurai, representing Counsel for the Appellants submits that the Appellants have taken the entire case papers of the Second Appeal from the Counsel on record on April 4, 2026. Hence, the Counsel on record reports “No Instructions”. To that effect, he files a Memo and the Memo is recorded.

¶33

3.In view of the submission and in view of the Memo, Registry is directed to print the name of the Appellants in the next listing date.

¶34

4.List the matter on April 10, 2026.”

¶35

4.As per the order dated April 8, 2026, the names of the Appellants have been shown in the cause list.

¶36

5.The Appellants were called absent. There is no representation on behalf of the Appellants. Hence, this Second Appeal is Dismissed for Non Prosecution. No costs.

10.04.2026

MSM

1.The Principal District Judge (I/C), Coimbatore.

¶41

2.The District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.

¶42

3.The Section Officer, High Court, Madras.

¶43