Madras High Court
D.Meganathan … vs Sekar on 24 October, 2024
SA.Nos.107 & 108 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M. JOTHIRAMAN
SA.Nos.107 & 108 of 2010
D.Meganathan … Appellant / plaintiff
in both the appeals
V.
Annamal (died)
1.Sekar
2.Santhakumar
3.Minnal Kodi … respondents / defendants
in both the appeals
Prayer in SA.No.107 of 2010 : This Second Appeal is filed under
Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against the judgment
and decree dated 30.07.2009 passed in AS.No.20 of 2006 on the file of
the Subordinate Judge, Poonthamallee against the judgment and decree
dated 25.08.2005 passed in OS.No.831 of 1988 on the file of the District
Munsif, Poonthamallee.
Prayer in SA.No.108 of 2010 : This Second Appeal is filed under
Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against the judgment
and decree dated 30.07.2009 passed in AS.No.21 of 2006 on the file of
the Subordinate Judge, Poonthamallee partly confirming the judgment
and decree dated 25.08.2005 passed in OS.No.1016 of 1987 on the file of
the District Munsif, Poonthamallee.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
SA.Nos.107 & 108 of 2010
For appellant : No appearance
For Respondents : Mr.A.Palaniappan, in both appeals.
JUDGMENT
There is no representation on behalf of the appellant either in
person or through his counsel. Heard the learned counsel for the
respondents.
2. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that after
reporting no instructions by the erstwhile counsel appearing for the sole
appellant, name of the appellant was printed in the cause list and he
knows very well about the pendency of this second appeal and not turned
up for conducting these appeals.
3. This Court perused the case file, these second appeals were
admitted on 10.02.2010 and the following substantial questions of law
were framed :-
“1.Whether the termination of the agreement of
sale is legally valid and binding on the appellant and
the other promisor, who has extended the time for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA.Nos.107 & 108 of 2010
performance of the contract?
2.Whether the endorsement of payment by one
of the promisors would extend the period for
performance of the contract?
3.Whether two of the promisors are legally
entitled to cancel the said agreement without the
consent and participation of the third joint promisor?
4.Whether the Courts below are right in
negativing the prayer for specific performance when
the appellant was always ready and willing to
perform his part of contract as enunciated in Section
16(c) of the Specific Relief Act?”
4. Both the appeals were listed on 10.01.2024, on that day both the
learned counsel for the appellant and the sole appellant are present before
this Court and directed to list the matter on 31.01.2024. Thereafter, the
appeals were listed on 05.07.2024, on that day, the learned counsel for
the appellant reported no instructions and therefore, Registry is directed
to list the matter on 10.07.2024.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA.Nos.107 & 108 of 2010
5. Again the appeals were listed on 10.08.2024, the counsel for the
respondents is present and no representation for the appellants and
posted the matter on 09.08.2024. Thereafter on 27.09.2024 also, the
counsel for the respondents is present and no representation for the
appellants and posted the matter on 01.10.2024. On 01.10.2024, when
the matter is listed, there is no representation for the appellants and the
counsel for the respondent is present and posted the matter on
17.10.2024. Thereafter, the appeals were listed on 18.10.2024, there is
no representation for both sides and posted the matter on 19.10.2024.
When the appeals were listed on 19.10.2024 also there is no
representation for both sides and posted the matter on 21.10.2024.
6. On 21.10.2024, the learned counsel for the respondents is
present and there is no representation for the appellant and posted the
matter on 24.10.2024 under the caption “for dismissal”.
7. Today, i.e., on 24.10.2024, when the matter is called at 2.15pm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA.Nos.107 & 108 of 2010
there is no representation on behalf of the appellant and the learned
counsel for the respondent is present and passed over the case. Once
again, the matter was called at 3.15pm also there is no representation on
behalf of the appellant either in person or through his counsel. The name
of the appellant is also printed in the cause list for past five hearing.
8. As narrated above, the conduct of the appellant shows that the
appellant is not willing to proceed with these appeals. Hence, there is no
other option except to dismiss these appeals for default.
9. Accordingly, both the second appeals are dismissed for default.
No costs.
24.10.2024
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
tsh
To
1. The Subordinate Judge, Poonthamallee
2. The District Munsif, Poonthamallee.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA.Nos.107 & 108 of 2010
M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.
tsh
SA.Nos.107 & 108 of 2010
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA.Nos.107 & 108 of 2010
24.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
