T.Perumal Naidu vs P.Sheik Mahmood Rawther
2022 Latest Caselaw 10043 Mad

                                                                                  S.A.No.468 of 2001

                         BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                DATED : 14.06.2022

                                                     CORAM :

                                  THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA

                                                S.A.No. 468 of 2001


                     1.T.Perumal Naidu
                     2.P.Pon Subbiah
                     3.P.Thirumalaisamy                        : Plaintiffs / appellants


                                                         Vs.


                     1.P.Sheik Mahmood Rawther
                     2. Mohmed Ali(deceased)
                     3.Amanullah
                     4.Ayisha Beebi
                     5.Kuraisa beebi alias Pappathi
                     6.Sira Junissa
                     7.Balkish Begum @ Bakkiyam
                     8.Rosa
                     9.Reginala
                     10.Minor Fathima
                     11.Minor Mohd. Ali
                     12.Minor. Hakheem
                     (Minors 10 to 12 rep. by their mother
                     and guardian 7th respondent /
                     Balkish Begum @ Bakkiyam)                          ... Respondents


                     Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC to set aside the

                     decree and Judgment of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai,

                     dated 24.03.2000 and made in A.S.No.41 of 1992 upholding the decree and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                   S.A.No.468 of 2001

                     judgment of the learned District Munsif, Madurai Taluk, dated 09.01.1991

                     passed in O.S.No.415 of 1984.



                                  For Appellants            : No appearance



                                                     JUDGMENT

On 05.04.2011, the following orders were passed by this Court:

“The appellants are directed to pay batta

with petition and comply with the defects pointed

out by the Registry on or before 21.04.2011

failing which the concerned appeal shall stand

dismissed automatically in respondents in whose

favour batta is due”

2. Till date, batta for the respondents 4, 6 to 9, 10 to 12 have

not been paid and hence, the second appeal is dismissed against them. It is

also seen from the records that the respondents 2, 3 and 5 are dead and till

date, no steps have been taken to implead the legal heirs of the deceased

respondents 2, 3 and 5.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.468 of 2001

3. Even today, there is no representation for the appellants.

Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed for non prosecution. No costs.

14.06.2022

Index : Yes/No Internet :Yes/No trp

To

1. The Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai.

2. The District Munsif, Manamadurai

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.468 of 2001

R. HEMALATHA, J.,

trp

S.A.No. 468 of 2001

14.06.2022

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