Punitha Sankari vs K.Kalaivani
2022 Latest Caselaw 16840 Mad

                                                                                         A.S.No.820 of 2012

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   DATED : 26.10.2022

                                                        CORAM :

                      THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
                                                    A.S.No.820 of 2012
                                                   and M.P.No.1 of 2012

                1. Punitha Sankari
                2. Minor Manisha
                   Rep. by her mother and guardian
                   Punitha Sankari                                      ... Appellants

                                                         Versus

                1. K.Kalaivani
                2. Kanmani
                3. R.Kannammal
                4. P.Nagarajan
                5. M.K.Rajan
                6. S.P.Subramaniam                                ... Respondents

                Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure
                against the judgment and decree, dated 31.01.2012 made in O.S.No.1 of 2010
                on the file of the Court of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge,
                Fast Track Court - I, Coimbatore.

                                  For Appellants     : Mr.T.M.Naveen

                                  For Respondents : M/s.Abirami, for RR-1 and 2
                                              Notice served to RR-3 to 5
                                              R6 - Died


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                1/5
                                  A.S.No.820 of 2012




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                2/5
                                                                                   A.S.No.820 of 2012

                                                   JUDGMENT

This Appeal Suit arises out of a suit for partition. Mr.T.M.Naveen,

learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, would submit that he

has been informed by his counter-part in the lower Court that the matter is

settled out of the Court. But, the parties have not given any written instructions

to him. Inspite of his attempts to contact, the parties have not so far contacted

him.

2. M/s.Abirami, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents

1 and 2, would also confirm the fact that she has also got oral instructions from

her clients that the matter is settled out of the Court.

3. In that view of the matter, even though the learned Counsel for the

appellants seeks time to get instructions in writing, considering the above facts,

this Appeal Suit is dismissed as the parties have settled out of the Court.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. However, there shall

be no order as to costs.

26.10.2022 Index : yes/no https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.No.820 of 2012

Speaking order/Non-speaking order grs

To

The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court - I, Coimbatore.

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

A.S.No.820 of 2012

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY. J.,

grs

A.S.No.820 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012

26.10.2022

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