Madras High Court
Nagar Nagar Sourashtra Sabha vs The Commissioner on 16 August, 2022
A.S(MD)No.4 of 2009
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 16.08.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
A.S(MD)No.4 of 2009
and
M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2009
Nagar Nagar Sourashtra Sabha
Dindigul,
Rep. by its Secretary K.D.E.Sethuram,
S/o.K.S.Eswara Iyer, Muniappa
Kovil Street,
Nagar Nagar,
Dindigul,
and through subsequent Secretaries.
...Appellant
Vs.
1.The Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai-34.
2.The Joint Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
West Chithirai Street,
Madurai-1.
3.K.N.R.Kuppusamy
4.K.Easwaramoorthy (Died)
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD)No.4 of 2009
5.K.Ganesan
6.K.Seenivasan
7.The Assistant Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Vinayaga Nagar,
Madurai-20.
8. E. Ramkumar ...Respondents
(8th Respondent is brought on record as legal heir
of the deceased fourth respondent vide Court
order, dated 18.07.2022 made in C.M.P(MD)
Nos.2016 to 2018 of 2018)
PRAYER: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 11.06.2008 passed in
O.S.No.258 of 2003, by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge,
Dindigul.
For Appellant : Mr.M.R.Sreenivasan
for Mr.R.Nandakumar
For Respondents : Mr.M.Lingadurai - for R1, R2 & R7
Special Government Pleader
Mr.M.Nagarajan - for R3, R5 and R6
R4 - died
R8 - batta due
2/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD)No.4 of 2009
JUDGMENT
Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned
counsel appellant submitted that the third respondent died on 09.04.2020.
2. Steps have not been taken for the third respondent and
hence, the appeal suit is dismissed as against the third respondent. It
appears that the respondents 5 and 6, who are the legal heirs of the
deceased third respondent are already on record. Therefore, the question
of abatement does not arise. However, as steps have not been taken, the
appeal suit is dismissed as against the third respondent. A perusal of the
cause list shows that batta has not been paid for the eighth respondent
and therefore, the appeal is dismissed as against the eighth respondent.
3. The appeal is pending from the year 2009. When the
matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel for the appellant
is not ready to argue the matter, despite, sufficient opportunities being
given to the appellant, he is not ready to utilise the opportunities and
prosecute the appeal further. This shows that the appellant is not
interested in prosecuting the appeal diligently. Hence, this Court has no
other option, except to dismiss the appeal suit for non-prosecution.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD)No.4 of 2009
4. Accordingly, this Appeal Suit stands dismissed for
non-prosecution. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
16.08.2022
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
rm
To
1.The Additional Subordinate Judge,
Dindigul.
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S(MD)No.4 of 2009
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
rm
A.S(MD)No.4 of 2009
(1/2)
16.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
