R.Barathi vs Thulasi Ammal
2021 Latest Caselaw 10916 Mad

                                                                               S.A. No.629 of 2002

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED : 28.04.2021

                                                      CORAM

                               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

                                               S.A. No.629 of 2002 &
                                               CMP.No.8510 of 2002


                     1.R.Barathi
                     2.R.Ashok (Minor)
                     3.R.Arun (Minor)
                       (Appellants 2 and 3 represented by Appellant 1)
                                                                         ...      Appellants
                                                      Vs

                     1.Thulasi Ammal
                     2.Saraswathi Ammal
                     3.Rajagopal
                     4.Sudharakar Real Estate
                     5.Sathya Real Estate
                      (R4 & R5 represented by Perumal Naicker)
                                                                         ...    Respondents

                     PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C. against the
                     judgment and decree dated 28.6.2001 of the learned District Judge,
                     Chengalpattu made in A.S.No.57 of 1998 modifying the Judgment and
                     Decree dated 10.07.1997 of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram
                     made in O.S.No.81 of 1990.


                     1/4



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                    S.A. No.629 of 2002




                                     For Appellants           : Mr.S.Balasubramanian


                                                        JUDGMENT

The matter is listed under the caption “for dismissal” today. Learned

counsel for the Appellants submits that despite his best efforts to conduct

his client, he is unable to do so. He has also sent a communication to the

Appellants by registered post which has been returned unserved. The

Appellants has also not taken steps to effect paper publication to serve

notice on R1 and R2. It can now be inferred that the Appellants are not

interested in prosecuting this second appeal Accordingly, this Second

Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. Consequently,

connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

28.04.2021

nl

Index: Yes/ No Internet: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A. No.629 of 2002

To

1. The District Judge, Chengalpattu

2. The Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A. No.629 of 2002

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

nl

S.A. No.629 of 2002

28.04.2021

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