Balarama Naicker vs Malliga Ammal
2024 Latest Caselaw 18063 Mad

Madras High Court

Balarama Naicker vs Malliga Ammal on 10 September, 2024

                                                                                    S.A.No.329 of 2020

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED : 10.09.2024

                                                          CORAM

                                      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

                                                     S.A.No.329 of 2020

                     Balarama Naicker                                            ... Appellant


                                                              Vs.


                     Malliga Ammal                                               ... Respondent


                                  Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure

                     Code, against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.39 of 2013

                     dated 30.10.2019 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge at

                     Thiruvannamalai District in reversing the Judgment and Decree made in

                     O.S.No.286 of 2004 dated 02.07.2013 on the file of the Additional

                     District Munsif Court at Chengam.



                                              For Appellant    : Mr.Gurunanthan
                                                                 For Mr.P.R.Balasubramanian

                                              For Respondent : Mr.P.Mani


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     1/4
                                                                                       S.A.No.329 of 2020

                                                         JUDGMENT

Mr.Gurunanthan, representing counsel for

Mr.P.R.Balasubramanian, counsel on record for the appellant and

Mr.P.Mani, counsel for the respondent, are before this Court.

2. The representing counsel for the appellant would submit that the

appellant counsel is not ready to argue the matter today.

3. This Court has perused the case file. The Second Appeal was

admitted on 20.03.2020 on the following substantial question of law :

i) Whether the Courts below were right in construing Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, as a bar to defendant's claim that there was a mistake in Ex.A1 sale deed relating to the extent of land?

4. The Second Appeal was thereafter listed on 13.08.2024. On

13.08.2024, the learned counsel for the appellant sought time to argue the

matter, hence the Registry was directed to list the matter on 20.08.2024.

On 20.08.2024, when the matter came up for hearing, again the learned

counsel for the appellant sought time to argue the matter. Hence, with a

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

view to give one more opportunity to the appellant, the Second Appeal

was adjourned to 22.08.2024. Thereafter, the matter was listed on two

occasions i.e. on 22.08.2024 and 30.08.2024 for hearing arguments of

the appellant. However, the learned counsel for the appellant was not

ready to argue the matter on that days. When the matter is taken up for

hearing today, Mr.Gurunanthan, representing counsel for

Mr.P.R.Balasubramanian, seeks time to argue the matter.

5. As narrated above, the conduct of the appellant shows that the

appellant is not willing to proceed with the appeal. Hence, there is no

other option except to dismiss this appeal for default and accordingly, this

Second Appeal is dismissed for default. No costs.

10.09.2024 raja Index : yes/no Internet : yes/no

To

1. The Additional Subordinate Court, Thiruvannamalai

2. The Additional District Munsif Court, Chengam.

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

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

raja

10.09.2024

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