Madras High Court
Subbulakshmi vs Vijaya Jeyaseelan David on 27 March, 2023
S.A.(MD)No.567 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27.03.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
S.A.(MD)No.567 of 2019
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.11379 of 2019
Subbulakshmi ... Appellant
/Vs./
1.Vijaya Jeyaseelan David
2.R.Suresh
3.M.Padmanaban
4.Ramamoorthy ... Respondents
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure
Code to set aside the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2019 passed in
A.S.No.67 of 2016, on the file of the 4th Additional District Court,
Tirunelveli, reversing the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2016 passed
in O.S.No.112 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Sub Judge,
Tirunelveli.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.567 of 2019
For Appellant : No appearance
For Respondents : Mr.A.Prasanna Rajadurai (R1)
No appearance (R2 & R4)
JUDGMENT
The matter is listed under the caption for reporting settlement.
Earlier, only on the request made by the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant, when the matter was listed under the caption 'For
Dismissal', the matter was adjourned for reporting settlement of the
matter.
2. A memo dated 22.03.2023 has also been filed by the learned
counsel appearing for the first respondent before this Court today. In the
memo, the first respondent has categorically stated that in respect of 7/8
shares in the suit schedule properties, the first respondent has already
taken possession of the suit schedule property through an Execution
Petition filed by him. The first respondent has also stated in the memo
that 7/8 shares purchased by him is 3743.25 sq.ft., and the remaining
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.567 of 2019
534.75 sq.ft., of the suit property belongs to the appellant as per the
impugned Judgment and Decree of the first appellate Court in A.S.No.67
of 2016. An undertaking has also been given that the first respondent
shall not disturb the appellant's share in the suit schedule property. On a
prima facie consideration, the appellant is adequately protected by the
memo dated 22.03.2023 filed by the first respondent, which is taken on
record by this Court.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant seeks further
time to get instructions with regard to the memo filed by the first
respondent. Since the matter was listed for dismissal and only on the
request made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
dismissal caption was removed and the matter has been listed under the
caption for reporting settlement today, no further adjournments can be
granted to the appellants. This second appeal is of the year 2019.
4. After recording the memo dated 22.03.2023 filed by the first
respondent, this Court is dismissing the Second Appeal for non-
prosecution, as the appellant despite granting several opportunities has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.567 of 2019
neither come forward to argue the matter or is able to get instructions
with regard to the contentions of the first respondent as seen from the
memo dated 22.03.2023. It can now be inferred that the appellant is not
interested in prosecuting this Second Appeal and accordingly, this
Second Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Interim order granted
in favour of the appellant earlier stands vacated. There shall be no order
as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
27.03.2023
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
Sm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.567 of 2019
TO:
1.The 4th Additional District Court, Tirunelveli.
2.The Additional Sub Judge, Tirunelveli,
3.The Section Officer,
VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.567 of 2019
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
Sm
Judgment made in
S.A.(MD)No.567 of 2019
Dated:
27.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
