Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 8696 Mad
Judgement Date : 25 April, 2022
S.A.(MD)No.265 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 25.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
S.A(MD)No.265 of 2019
and
CMP(MD) No.5127 of 2019
D.Natarajan ... Appellant
-vs-
1.Leelavathi
2.D.Rajendran ... Respondents
Prayer :- The second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, to reverse and set aside the judgment and decree in A.S.No.41
of 2013 dated 19.01.2015 passed by the V Additional District judge,
Madurai and in confirming the judgment and decree of the Principal
Subordinate Judge, Madurai made in O.S.No.1235 of 2010 dated
19.08.2013 and allow the present second appeal.
_________
Page 1 of 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.265 of 2019
For Appellant : No appearance
For Respondents : Ms.Meenakarpagarajam
JUDGMENT
When the matter came up for hearing on 19.04.2022, the learned
counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was ready and
willing to pay a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- towards full and final settlement.
However, the learned counsel for the appellant sought further time to get
appropriate instructions from his clients. Hence, the matter was
adjourned to 21.04.2022. On that date, the learned counsel for the
respondents reported that his client is ready and willing to receive a sum
of Rs.7,00,000/ towards full and final settlement of the entire suit claim.
Since none appeared on behalf of appellant, the matter was adjourned to
22.04.2022 under the caption 'for dismissal'. When the matter came up
for hearing on 22.04.2022 also, there was no representation for the
appellant. Hence, the matter was directed to be listed on 26.04.2022
under the same caption.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD)No.265 of 2019
2.Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, none appeared on
behalf of the appellant. Therefore, the second appeal is dismissed for non
prosecution. It is made clear that, in the event, if any application is filed
in future for restoration of the Second Appeal, the same will be
entertained only, the appellant is depositing a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- as
agreed to pay towards full and final settlement.
3.This Court is very clear that a dilatory tactics has been followed
by the appellant, having made a statement that his client is ready and
willing to pay a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- and thereafter, none appeared for
the appellant. It shows that he wanted the matter to go for a dismissal
and to file a subsequent application for restoration. Therefore, the
appellant's attitude looks like taking leniency to proceed the matter
before this Court.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD)No.265 of 2019
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
cp
4.Therefore, the second appeal is dismissed for non prosecution.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
26.04.2022
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No cp
To
1.The V Additional District judge, Madurai.
2.The Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai.
S.A(MD)No.265 of 2019 and CMP(MD) No.5127 of 2019
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!