Jagadeesan vs Santha Rajeswari
2021 Latest Caselaw 13155 Mad

                                                                                  A.S.(MD)No.202 of 2017

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                   DATED: 05.07.2021

                                                           CORAM:

                              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

                                                A.S(MD)No.202 of 2017
                                                          and
                                   C,M.P.(MD)No.11647 of 2017 & M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2015


                   Jagadeesan                                                     ... Appellant

                                                           -Vs-


                   Santha Rajeswari                                               ... Respondent


                   PRAYER: Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure
                   Code, to set aside the Judment and decree passed in O.S.No.31 of 2012,
                   dated 02.09.2013 on the file of the 1st Additional District Court, Tuticorin.
                                           For Appellant          : Mr.H.Arumugam
                                           For Respondent         : Mrs.P.Jessi Jeeva Priya
                                                                  for Mr.G.Aravinthan


                                                      JUDGMENT

This appeal was taken up for hearing on 11.06.2021, on 17.06.2021

and again on 30.6.2021. The learned counsel on either side acquainted the

Court on the factual aspects. The Court felt that the matter can possibly be

resolved.

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

A.S.(MD)No.202 of 2017

2.Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned

counsel for the appellant informs the Court that even though the appellant

had received his letter, there is no response from him. The counsel reports

no instructions.

3.When the appellant in this appeal is not ready to get along with the

matter, the Court has no other option but to dismiss the appeal for default. I

get an impression that the appellant is playing with the Court. When the

matter has been listed for final hearing, the appellant is obliged to get along

with the matter on merits. If the appeal is allowed to be dismissed for

default, later an application will be filed for restoration.

5.In this case, there is absolutely no sufficient cause for allowing the

appeal to get dismissed for default. The case was taken up on quite a few

occasions. The appellant is fully aware that the Court is seized of the

matter. When the appellant is adopting an attitude of non-cooperation, then,

he has to be dealt with appropriately. Though this Court has no other option

but to dismiss this appeal for non-prosecution, it is not helpless. This Court

directs that the application for restoration will be considered only, if the

appellant pays a sum of Rs.75,000/- as cost to the State Legal Services https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

A.S.(MD)No.202 of 2017

Authority. Registry will not number the application for restoration, unless,

proof of remittance of cost is shown. The second appeal is dismissed for

default. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are

closed.

05.07.2021

Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes/No rmi

To

1.The 1st Additional District Court, Tuticorin.

2.The Section Officer, Vernacular Records, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

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

A.S.(MD)No.202 of 2017

G.R.SWAMINATHAN.J.,

rmi

Judgment made in A.S(MD)No.202 of 2017 and C,M.P.(MD)No.11647 of 2017 & M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2015

05.07.2021

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