Madras High Court
Ramajeyam vs Vijayalakshmi on 2 February, 2021
C.M.S.A.No.38 of 2004 and
C.M.P.No.17425 of 2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.02.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.M.S.A.No.38 of 2004 and
C.M.P.No.17425 of 2004
Ramajeyam
... Appellant
Vs.
1.Vijayalakshmi
2.Pavadai
.. Respondents
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal filed under Order XXI
R.58(4) r/w Section 100 of C.P.C., against the order and decreetal order
dated 20.02.2004, made in C.M.A.No.24 of 2002 on the file of the
Subordinate Court at Chidambaram, confirming the order and decreed
order dated 31.10.2001 made in E.A.No.1230 of 1985 in E.P.No.291 of
1985 in O.S.No.707 of 1980, on the file of the District Munsif Court,
Chidambaram.
For Appellant : Mr.Srinath Sridevan
For Respondents : Not ready in notice
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.S.A.No.38 of 2004 and
C.M.P.No.17425 of 2004
JUDGMENT
The order and decreetal order dated 20.02.2004, made in
C.M.A.No.24 of 2002, confirming the order and decreed order dated
31.10.2001 made in E.A.No.1230 of 1985 in E.P.No.291 of 1985 in
O.S.No.707 of 1980, is under challenge in the present civil
miscellaneous second appeal.
2. A perusal of the case records reveals that in respect of the
orders of this Court on 10.11.2004, the appellant has not served notice
to the respondents. Several opportunities were provided to the appellant
on 13.12.2018, 20.12.2018, 09.01.2019, 23.01.2019 and finally on
15.10.2019, again permitting the appellant to serve notice to the
respondents, even private notice was also permitted by this Court. In
spite of the opportunities provided by this Court, enabling the appellant
to serve notice to the respondents, till date, the appellant has not served
notice to the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.S.A.No.38 of 2004 and
C.M.P.No.17425 of 2004
3. The learned counsel for the appellant states that notice was sent
to the respondents and the cover was returned with an endorsement
“insufficient address”.
4. In view of the fact that the appellant has not taken any steps to
find out the correct address to send notice for the past about 16 years
and several opportunities were provided to the appellant by this Court,
this Court is not inclined to grant any further time which would not
serve any purpose, thus the appeal kept pending for indefinite period.
5. Thus, C.M.S.A.No.38 of 2004 stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
02.02.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking Order
gsk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.S.A.No.38 of 2004 and
C.M.P.No.17425 of 2004
To
1.The Subordinate Court, Chidambaram.
2.The District Munsif Court, Chidambaram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.S.A.No.38 of 2004 and
C.M.P.No.17425 of 2004
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
gsk
C.M.S.A.No.38 of 2004 and
C.M.P.No.17425 of 2004
02.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
