Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 5966 Mad
Judgement Date : 23 March, 2022
AS.No.186 of 1995
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 23.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.THARANI
A.S.No.186 of 1995
V.VR.VR.Ramanathan Chettiar (Died)
2.CT.Umayal
3.RM.Sundaram
4.RM.Manikam
5.Sivakami
6.Ramanathan
7.Valliammai
8.VR.Subramanian
9.VR.Visalakshi
(Appellants 2 to 9 are brought on record
as legal representatives of the deceased
sole appellant vide Court order dated
10.02.2022) ... Appellants
Vs
1.M/s.Anbu Estates,
represented by its Partner
Janab Babuji Mubarak Ali
M.Noor Mohammed (died)
(Partner name has been recorded in the
place of deceased partner vide Court order
dated 13.09.--)
2.Aiysa Beevi
3.Mohammed Beevi
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.186 of 1995
4.Sabeena Parveen
5.Mohamed Ibrahim
(Respondents 2 to 5 brought on record
as legal representatives of the deceased
sole respondent as per Court order) ... Respondents
PRAYER :-
This Appeal suit is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil
Procedure read with Order 41 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code
against the judgment and decree dated 30.08.1994 in O.S.No.45 of
1989 of the learned Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur.
For Appellant : No appearance
For R3 : Mr. K.Sridar
JUDGMENT
This appeal is pending from the year 1995. The suit was of
the year 1989. From 2008 onwards, the case was listed and on
those hearing dates, there was no representation on the side of the
appellant on 13.10.2008, 22.10.2008, 05.11.2008, 18.11.2008,
26.11.2008 and 27.11.2008, the case was adjourned on the request
of the learned counsel for the appellant. On 27.11.2008, it was
reported that the appellant is dead. After taking steps, the case
was adjourned to 12.01.2009, 20.01.2009, 27.01.2009, 13.02.2009,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis AS.No.186 of 1995
19.02.2009, 05.03.2009, 11.03.2009 and on those dates, there was
no representation on the side of the appellant. The case was listed
before me on 10.02.2022, 16.02.2022, 01.03.2022 on 11.03.2022
and on these hearing dates, the appellant was not ready for
arguments. On 11.03.2022, the case was adjourned to 23.03.2022
under the caption 'for arguments or for orders'.
2.Today, the matter was listed under the caption 'for
arguments or for orders'. But the appellant is not ready for
arguments today also. There is no use in keeping the appeal
pending any further.
3.Hence this Appeal Suit is dismissed for default. No costs.
(R T J) 23.03.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No
pnn
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis AS.No.186 of 1995
R.THARANI, J.
pnn
To
1.The Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur.
2.The Record Clerk, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
A.S.No.186 of 1995
23.03.2022
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!