Madras High Court
K.M.Kadirvel vs A.Rajavel on 22 February, 2022
A.S.No.21 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
A.S.No.21 of 2011
1.K.M.Kadirvel
2.T.M.Krishnavel
3.M.Pappuammal .. Appellants
Vs.
T.N.Arthanari Mudaliar (died)
1.A.Rajavel
2.B.Irusappa Raja
3.M.Vijayarani
4.B.Govindarajan
5.Nagammal
6.C.Pavayammal
7.R.Samporanavalli
8.Ramalingam
9.S.Chitra
10.A.Bhanureka
11.S.Umadevi
12.M.Vidyalakshmi
13.A.Velayutham
14.A.Poongodi
15.V.Sivakumar
16.Balamurugan
17.M.Kandasami
18.P.K.Sekar
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.21 of 2011
19.K.Madesan
20.T.S.Annamalai
22.T.K.Arunachalam
23.Y.C.Ayyavoo
24.T.R.Muniappan
25.Y.M.A.Subramani
26.Y.T.K.Kuppusamy
27.S.Arthanari
28.P.Ariyaputhiran
29.K.Ramalingam
30.Thiyagarajan
31.S.Dharmalinga
32.M.Muniappan
33.A.Vanitha
34.S.Sivagami
35.T.Saravanan
36.K.Marimuthu
37.K.Mani
38.A.Thangavelu
39.A.Manickam
40.P.Kumaravel
41.R.Sekar
42.M.Kanimozhi
43.Santhi
44.M.Dhanalakshmi
45.G.Gopal
46.M.Kandasamy
47.M.Murugavel
48.K.Senthilkumar
49.T.Santhi
50.M.Baby
51.A.Chandiran
52.K.Vedeeswaran
53.K.Devaki
54.K.Kalyani
55.M.Kumaravel
2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.21 of 2011
56.M.Selvi
57.S.Venkisamy
58.V.Rajendran
59.L.Ranganayaki
60.R.Kanmani
61.K.Venkatachalam
62.V.Vijaya
63.M.Thangamani
64.M.Velumani
65.M.Nagarajan
66.K.Janaki
67.K.Arthanari
68.K.Balamurugan
69.K.Mariappan
70.K.Srinivasan
71.K.Gomathi
72.K.Dhanalakshmi
73.R.Vijaya
74.R.Ravi
75.R.Selvi
76.M.Savithri
77.M.Mohan
78.M.Santhi
79.M.Chandra
80.M.Uma .. Respondents
PRAYER: Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of C.P.C, against the
judgment and decree dated 29.06.2010 passed by the Additional District
Judge/ Fast Track Court No.2, Salem in partly allowing the O.S.No.132
of 2006.
For Appellant : Mr.P.Sathish
3/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.21 of 2011
For R2, 5, 51, 56,
63 to 67, 69 to 75 : Mr.B.Shyam
For R4 : Mr.R.Nalliyappan
For R12, 17, 18, 22
25 to 27, 29, 31 to
33, 42, 57 and 68 : Not ready notice
JUDGMENT
In this appeal totally there are 80 respondents. The
appellants have not taken steps to serve some of the respondents. When
the matter was listed on 17.02.2022, there was no representation on
behalf of the appellants. Hence the matter was posted today for dismissal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants stated that the
matter has been listed for the first time and seeks adjournment. This
reason is contrary to the facts. Therefore, it appears that the appellants
are not interested in pursuing the matter in serving notice on the
respondents to proceed. Since the appeal is of the year 2011, the
appellants are not ready and take steps to serve notice on the unserved
respondents, this Court has no other option except to dismiss the appeal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.21 of 2011
for default.
3. In view of above, the Appeal Suit is dismissed for default.
No costs.
22.02.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
rpl
To
The Additional District Judge/ Fast Track Court No.2, Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.21 of 2011
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
rpl
A.S.No.21 of 2011
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.21 of 2011
22.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
