Vijaya vs R.Sahadevan
2021 Latest Caselaw 13353 Mad

                                                                                     S.A.No.977 of 2002

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED: 06.07.2021

                                                           CORAM:

                                    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

                                                      S.A.No.977 of 2002

                     1.Vijaya
                     2.Nagarajan
                     3.Santhi
                     4.Minor Govindan,
                       rep. by natural friend &
                       mother and guardian                                                 ...Appellants

                                                              vs.

                     R.Sahadevan                                            ...Respondent
                     Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the
                     Judgment and Decree dated 21.02.2002 made in A.S.No.23 of 1998 on the file
                     of the Subordinate Judge, Tirupathur, modifying the Judgment and Decree
                     dated 7.04.1998 made in O.S.No.1067 of 1996 on the file of Principal District
                     Munsiff, Ambur.
                                   For Appellants         : Mr.M.Elayaraja
                                   For Respondent         : Ms.AL.Gandhimathi


                                                        JUDGMENT

Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that letter sent by her to the

respondent has been returned with the endorsement "expired".

2.Appellant has also not taken steps to bring on record the legal

representatives of the deceased sole respondent.

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

S.A.No.977 of 2002

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

pam

3.Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that the connected

Second Appeal filed by the respondent viz., S.A.No.1814 of 2004 has also been

dismissed as abated since no steps have been taken to bring on record the legal

representatives of the deceased Appellant in that Second Appeal. In this case

also, the Appellant has also not taken steps to bring on record the legal

representatives of the deceased sole respondent.

4.Hence, it can now be inferred that the Appellant is not interested in

prosecuting the Second Appeal. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed

for non-prosecution. No costs.

06.07.2021

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

S.A.No.977 of 2002 To

1.The Subordinate Judge, Tirupathur.

2.The Principal District Munsiff, Ambur.

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