B.Ananthakrishnan @ Raman v. B.Jayaraman(Deceased)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 20.03.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR AND THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI A.S.No.488 of 2008 and MP.No.2 of 2007 B.Ananthakrishnan @ Ramani ... Appellant/Plaintiff -Vs1.B.Jayaraman (deceased)

2. Geetha Jayaraman

3. P.Kunjammal

4. R.Vasantha

5. V.Rama

6. K.Banu

7. J.Balaji Srinivasan

8. J.Ramagopalan (R7 & R8 brought on record as LRs of the deceased R1 vide order dated 12.4.2010 made in MP 2/10 in AS 488/08) ... Respondents PRAYER: First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to set aside the Judgment and decree of the First Additional District Court at Coimbatore dated 28.04.2006 made in O.S.No.313 of 2005. For Appellant : Mr.G.Harikrishna 1/4

for Mr.G.RM.Palaniappan For Respondents : Mr.Mukunth for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates for R2, 7 & 8 R1 - died R3 to R6 - Not ready in notice *****

J U D G M E N T

[Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.S.SUNDAR, J] The appeal suit has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2006 passed in O.S.No.313 of 2005 on the file of the First Additional District Court at Coimbatore.

2. It is seen from the records that M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates have filed vakalat for R2, 7 & 8. The appeal is given up as against R3 to R6. First respondent is no more and the respondents 7 & 8 were brought on record as legal heirs of deceased 1st respondent. We find that respondents 3, 5 & 6 are represented by the Power of Attorney agent viz., 4th respondent. It is seen that II Batta is due to 4th respondent and therefore, notice is not yet served on the 4th respondent, who is contesting the appeal on behalf of respondents 3, 5 & 6. In such circumstances, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant states that he has given change of vakalat.

3. Since the appeal is preferred in the year 2008 and no steps have been 2/4

taken to serve on the 4th respondent, who is also supposed to defend the respondents 3, 5 & 6, this Court finds no valid reason to adjourn this matter any more. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant states that he has handed over the papers to the parties. No one has filed vakalat sofar. In these circumstances, this Court finds that keeping this matter pending will not yield any result. The appellant is not interested in prosecuting the Appeal with diligence and hence, it is not desirable to adjourn this matter any further. Since no steps have been taken to serve notice on the contesting 4th respondent and the counsel reports that the appellant has taken papers, this appeal suit is dismissed for non prosecution. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.

[S.S.S.R, J] [P.B.B., J] 20.03.2023 (2/2) kmi Index : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order To The First Additional District Court, Coimbatore.

3/4

S.S.SUNDAR, J and P.B.BALAJI, J kmi A.S.No.488 of 2008 and MP.No.2 of 2008 20.03.2023 (2/2) 4/4