Dismissed¶22

Mohammed Khan v. Sheik Dawood

Madras HC16 Jun 2026SA(MD)/814/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Procedural dismissal for non-prosecution of a Section 100 CPC second appeal; not citable for any legal holding. Parties: Mohammed Khan and Kalanthar Nina Mohammed (appellants) v. Sheik Dawood, Kansul Mahariba, Faridha Beevi and Sulthan Beevi (respondents). Chain: District Munsif, Aranthangi (O.S.No.73 of 2010, decree dated 27.08.2014) -> Subordinate Judge, Aranthangi (A.S.No.74 of 2017, decree dated 09.08.2018, confirming trial decree) -> Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (S.A.(MD)No.814 of 2021, dismissed 16.06.2026, P.B.Balaji, J.). Counsel: R.Suriya Narayanan for appellants (reported no instructions on 15.06.2026 and again on 16.06.2026); N.Balakrishnan for first respondent. Connected C.M.P.(MD)No.11218 of 2021 closed; no order as to costs.

What the court decided

Mohammed Khan Vs Sheik Dawood — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

S.A.(MD)No.814 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 16.06.2026

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

¶6

S.A.(MD)No.814 of 2021

¶7

and

¶8

C.M.P.(MD)No.11218 of 2021

¶9

1.Mohammed Khan 2.Kalanthar Nina Mohammed ... Appellants

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.Sheik Dawood

¶12

2.Kansul Mahariba

¶13

3.Faridha Beevi

¶14

4.Sulthan Beevi ... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, praying to allow the Second Appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 09.08.2018 made in A.S.No. 74 of 2017, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Aranthangi, confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2014 made in O.S.No.73 of 2010, on the file of the District Munsif, Aranthangi.

¶16

Appellants : No appearance For Respondent No.1 : Mr.N.Balakrishnan Respondents 2 to 4 : No appearance

¶17

1/4

¶18

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

¶19

S.A.(MD)No.814 of 2021

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Pursuant to the directions issued yesterday [15.06.2026], the names of the appellants are printed in the cause list along with the learned Counsel for the appellants. Yesterday, Mr.R.Suriya Narayanan has already reported no instructions. However, today, considering the fact that his name is printed, he is present and reiterates his submission that he has no instructions. Learned Counsel for the first respondent is also present.

¶22

2 . In view of the above, this Second Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶23

16.06.2026

¶24

Index : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No MR

¶25

2/4

¶26

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

¶27

S.A.(MD)No.814 of 2021

¶28

¶29