Madras High Court
A.Xavier vs Innasimuthu Pillai on 18 April, 2022
S.A.No.380 of 2000
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 18.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. THARANI
S.A.No.380 of 2000
A.Xavier .. Appellant / Appellant / Defendant
Vs.
1.Innasimuthu Pillai
2.Mariasusai Alias Susairaj
3.J.D.Frank
4.M.Aarokyasami
5.M.Susai Ammal Alias Immelda bon
6.Vincent Mary
7.Josephin James .. Respondents / Respondents / Plaintiffs
Prayer : This Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure
Code, against the judgment and decree of the Principal Subordinate Judge,
Tiruchirappalli, dated 16.06.1999 in A.S.No. 51 of 1998 confirming the
judgment and decree of the II Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli,
dated 17.07.1997, in O.S.No.18 of 1988.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Govindarajan
for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates
For R2, 3, 6 & 7 : No appearance
R1, R4, R5 : Died
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.380 of 2000
JUDGMENT
This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree
of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli, dated 16.06.1999 in
A.S.No. 51 of 1998 confirming the judgment and decree of the II Additional
District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli, dated 17.07.1997, in O.S.No.18 of 1988.
2. This appeal was filed in the year 2000. The original suit was of
the year 1988. The suit was for injunction and for mandatory injunction. The
second appeal was admitted on 29.06.2000. On 15.04.2014, this Court has
instructed the appellant to rectify the defect pointed out by the Registry and
directed the appellant to pay batta and to take steps and directed the appeal to
be dismissed automatically in respect of the respondents in whose favour
batta or steps due, even then, after this instruction, the appellant has filed
M.P.No.1 of 2014, but the appellant failed to pay batta or to take steps for
substitute service as directed by this Court. On 15.03.2022, the appellant has
informed the Court that all the respondents have died. Though the case was
adjourned to 21.03.2022 and 28.03.2022, the appellant has not chosen to take
steps for the deceased respondents. The case was listed on 06.04.2022, on
that date, there was no representation on the side of the appellant, hence, the
matter was adjourned to 18.04.2022, “for taking steps for deceased finally”.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.380 of 2000
3. When the matter was taken up for hearing today (ie.18.04.2022),
the stage of the case is the same. No substitute service was taken in M.P.
(MD) Nos.1 to 3 of 2014. Batta was not paid. Steps for deceased fourth
respondent and respondents 2, 3, 6 and 7 are not taken. There is no use in
keeping the case pending any further. There cannot be any reasonable
explanation on the side of the appellant for non-serving summon, for the
past 22 years.
4. In the above circumstances, this Second Appeal is dismissed for
default. No costs.
18.04.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Ls
To
1.The Principal Subordinate Judge,
Tiruchirappalli.
2.The II Additional District Munsif,
Tiruchirapalli.
3.The V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.380 of 2000
R. THARANI, J.
Ls
S.A.No.380 of 2000
18.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
