Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 4853 Mad
Judgement Date : 1 March, 2024
1/4 s.A.No.1140/2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :: 01-03-2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
SECOND APPEAL No.1140 of 2006
A.Solai alias Solaiappa Nadar ... Appellant
-vs-
1.Malai Ammal
2.C.Veeramani
3.C.Arumugasamy
4.C.Rajamanickam
5.Tamilnadu Slum Clearance Board,
5, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005. ... Respondents
Appeal against the judgment and decree, dated 21.11.2005, passed in
A.S.No.410 of 2004 on the file of Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court V) ,
Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 10.10.2002, passed in
O.S.No.1526 of 1984, on the file of I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mrs.Jayashree Narasimhan
Respondent 1 : Died
For Respondent 2 : Mr.P.Dhanasekaran
For Respondents 3 & 4 : Mr.N.Selvarajan
For Respondent 5 : No appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/4 s.A.No.1140/2006
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal was listed before this Court on 12.01.2024 under the
caption ''Default Cases'' and this Court also passed orders, granting four weeks' time to
rectify the defects, failing with the Second Appeal stood closed.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant mentioned the matter before this
Court and submitted that the matter was posted in the default cases only due to not
taking of steps against first respondent; that since first respondent has already died, no
steps are necessary; and that respondents 2 to 4, who are on record, are the legal heirs of
first respondent. The learned counsel also submitted that even though the sole appellant
in the appeal died as early as on 04.10.2009, she has filed a petition to substitute the
legal heirs and, therefore, the matter was adjourned to 21.02.2024.
3. When the matter was listed for hearing on 21.02.2024, no steps were
taken. It was recorded that since the counsel for the appellant submitted that they have
already taken steps regarding the sole appellant and also they would file a Memo in
respect of the death of first respondent as they contended that respondents 2 to 4 are
legal heirs, this Court, to provide one final opportunity, adjourned the matter to
01.03.2024 i.e., today.
4. Even today, when the matter is listed for hearing, no such Memo has
been filed and the appellant has not taken any steps to substitute the legal heirs of the
deceased sole appellant. From this, it is evident that the appellant is not interested in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
prosecuting the appeal. In such circumstances, no purpose is served in keeping the
appeal pending.
5. Therefore, this Second Appeal is dismissed, as abated. No costs.
01-03-2024 dixit
To
1.Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court V), Chennai,
2.I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
3.V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
dixit
01-03-2024
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!