Madras High Court
P.Hayathkhan vs Raja Mohammed on 6 September, 2024
Author: B.Pugalendhi
Bench: B.Pugalendhi
THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
C.M.P.Nos.15514 and 15515 of 1998
in
S.A.SR Nos.51476 and 51482 of 1996
For C.M.P.No.15514 of 1998
P.Hayathkhan ... Petitioner
Vs
1. Raja Mohammed
2.Shajahan
3.Jalaudeen ... Respondents
PRAYER in C.M.P.No.15514 of 1998:Civil Miscellaneous Petition is
filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 589
days in filing the above second appeal S.A SR No.51476 of 1996.
PRAYER in S.A.SR No.51476 of 1996: Second Appeal filed under
Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside the decree and
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
judgment, passed in A.S.No.155 of 1991 on the file of the District Court,
Thanjavur, dated 05.08.1993, confirming the decree and judgment,
passed in O.S.No.59 of 1987 on the file of the Sub Court, Thanjavur,
dated 11.11.1991.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.K.Vijayaragavan
For Respondents : Mr.B.Ponnpandi
For C.M.P.No.15515 of 1998
P.Hayathkhan ... Petitioner
Vs
1. Raja Mohammed
2.Shajahan
3.Jalaudeen ... Respondents
PRAYER in C.M.P.No.15515 of 1998:Civil Miscellaneous Petition is
filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 589
days in filing the above second appeal in S.A SR No.51482 of 1996.
PRAYER in S.A.SR No.51482 of 1996: Second Appeal filed under
Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside the decree and
judgment, passed in A.S.No.156 of 1991 on the file of the District Court,
Thanjavur, dated 05.08.1993, confirming the decree and judgment,
2/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
passed in O.S.No.192 of 1989 on the file of the Sub Court, Thanjavur,
dated 11.11.1991.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.K.Vijayaragavan
For Respondents : Mr.B.Ponnpandi
*****
COMMON ORDER
These civil miscellaneous petitions are filed in the year 1998
seeking to condone the delay of 589 days in filing the second appeals in
S.A.SR.Nos.51476 and 51482 of 1996.
2.The second appeals are arising out of the judgment and decree
passed in A.S.Nos.155 and 156 of 1991 by the District Court, Thanjavur,
respectively. The appellant has filed a suit in O.S.No.192 of 1989,
before the Sub Court, Thanjavur, against the respondents 1 and 2 seeking
a relief of permanent injunction. The respondents 1 and 2 have also filed
another suit in O.S.No.59 of 1987 before the Sub Court, Thanjavur, for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
declaration of the title and for injunction. Both the suits were tried
together and the suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.192 of 1989 was
decreed and the suit filed by the respondents 1 and 2 in O.S.No.59 of
1987 was dismissed. As against the same, the respondents 1 and 2 have
preferred the appeals in A.S.Nos.155 and 156 of 1991 as against the
judgment and decree passed in O.S.Nos.192 of 1989 and 59 of 1987
respectively. Both the appeal suits were dismissed by the District Court
Thanjavur on 11.11.1991. However, the present second appeals were
filed with a delay of 589 days.
3.The petitioner in his applications had stated that he is suffering
from mental illness and recurrent depression, for which, he is taking
treatment for some time and therefore, he cannot file the second appeals
in time and follow up the cases.
4.Though this Court is inclined to accept the reasons, there is no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
representation for the petitioner,
5.Earlier, when the cases were taken up for hearing, the learned
Counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo stating that the case bundles
along with vakalats were already sent to the petitioner by Registered
Post.
6.Considering the memo filed by the learned Counsel for the
petitioner, this Court has already directed the learned Counsel for the
petitioner to send a communication to the petitioner about the listing of
these applications. Accordingly, the learned Counsel for the petitioner
has also taken a notice to the petitioner on 16.08.2024. The copy of the
letter and the acknowledgment is also placed before this Court. For the
letter sent by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the father of the
petitioner has sent a reply letter to the learned Counsel for the petitioner
that the petitioner is in abroad and requested to take adjournment by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
three months.
7.It appears that the petitioner has been duly intimated about the
listing of these cases. However, there is no representation for the
petitioner.
8.The learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the
respondents 2 and 3 died and he cannot get any instructions from the
respondents 2 and 3. When the respondents 2 and 3 died and the
petitioner has failed to take any steps to implead the legal heirs of the
respondents 2 and 3. It is not known whether the petitioner would take
steps for impleading the legal heirs of the respondents 2 and 3.
9.Since the petitioner has not shown any interest to prosecute these
applications, no purpose would be served keeping the application
pending. Therefore, these civil miscellaneous petitions are dismissed for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
non-prosecution. No costs. Consequently the second appeals are
rejected at the SR stage itself.
10.Registry shall keep the letter sent by the petitioner's father on
record.
06.09.2024
Internet :Yes
Index :Yes/No
NCC :Yes/No
LR
TO:
1.The District Court,
Thanjavur.
2.The Sub Court,
Thanjavur.
3.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
LR
C.M.P.Nos.15514 and 15515 of
in
S.A.SR Nos.51476 and 51482 of
Dated:
06.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
