Marg Limited v. M/S South India Corporation
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU Marg Limited No.4/318, Old Mahabalipuram Road (OMR), Kottivakkam, Chennai-600 041.
(amended As Per Order Dt. 29.11.2010 In A.No.2028/2009 In CS.811/2004.) ..Plaintiff(s) Vs
1. M/s South India Corporation (Agencies) Ltd., South India House 73, Armenian Street, Chennai 600 001.
2. S.Vasudevan Managing Ddirector South India Corporation (Agencies) Ltd., South India House 73, Armenian Street, Chennai 600 001.
3. State Bank Of India Commercial Branch EA & A Division 232, NSC Bose Road Chennai 600 001.
4. State Bank Of India Bazullah Road Branch T Nagar, Chennai 600 017.
5. DSRK Holding(Chennai) Private Limited with its Registered Office at 1st Floor P.Kuppuswamy Complex
34/8, Rajabathar Street, T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017 Represented by its Director Mr.Narpat Singh Choraria (5th defendant impleaded as per order dated 25.04.2007 in Appln.No.3670 of 2007 and time extended dated 22.06.2007Impld As Per Order Dt. 25.4.07 In A.No.3670/07 And Time Extended Dt. 22.06.07.
6. M/s Haciendaa Infotech And Realtors (P) Ltd., Rani Seethai Hall, 5th Floor, No.603, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 006 (6th Defendant impleaded by way of amendment as per This Court order dated 8.12.10 in Appln.No.2030 of 2009 in CS No.811 of 2004) ..Defendant(s) Plaint filed under Order IV Rule I OS Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of CPC seeking for the following reliefs:- (a) for specific performance of the contract of sale entered into between the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 on 27.07.2004 and 02.08.2004, for the suit A & B schedule properties by directing the defendants 1 and 2 to execute and register the sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs. (a-1) without prejudice and in the alternative, for the specific performance of the contract of sale entered into between the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 on 18.08.2004, 21.08.2004 and 02.09.2004 for the A and B schedule properties by directing the defendants 1 and 2 to execute and register the sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff.
(b) for the relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants 1 & 2 to obtain the necessary no objection certificate from 3rd and 4th defendant for the sale of the suit A & B schedule properties and obtain release of the documents of title pertaining there to.
(c) for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 & 2 from in any way encumbering, alienating, leasing or developing or handing over possessino of the suit A & B schedule properties in favour of any third party, including any financial institution by way of availing more facilities.
(d) to direct 1st defendant to sell the property to plaintiff as and when State Bank of India clearance is obtained on the same terms and conditions. (e) forbearing by an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from encashing the fixed deposit receipts nos.:
(1) TDR 740580 dated 5.8.04 for Rs.1,00,00,000/-
(2) TDR 740581 dated 5.8.04 for Rs.1,00,00,000/- kept in the custody of Advocate, P.B.Ramanujam, Chennai. For Plaintiff(s):
No appearance For Defendant(s):
Mr.Vaibhav (D6) Mr. Abishek Jenasenan (D5) No appearance (D1 to D4)
J U D G M E N T
A suit filed in the year 2004 had been listed for recording of evidence before the II Additional Master, wherein the plaintiffs have been repeatedly taking time to take out an application for permission to file an additional document. Noting that the plaintiffs had not taken any steps to take out such application this Court by its order dated 18.06.2025 had closed the plaintiff's side evidence and recorded the statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants 5 and 6, who are the contesting defendants, that they do not intend to adduce evidence and list the matter for oral arguments on 02.07.2025. Thereafter, repeated adjournments had been granted at the request of the counsel for the plaintiffs. In an order dated 10.09.
2025, recording the plaintiffs conduct in not conducting the case, as a final opportunity, this Court had granted time to the plaintiffs to argue the matter on 24.09.2025 failing which the suit shall be dismissed for non-prosecution. A similar recordings had been made on 24.09.2025 and the matter stood adjourned to 29.10.2025. Thereafter, when the matter was taken up on further dates, this Court had been appraised of a settlement being proposed and on that ground, the matter had been repeatedly adjourned and finally on 12.01.2026, this Court had categorically recorded that if no settlement is concluded by the next hearing date, the plaintiffs should make their submissions on 28.01.2026. On 28.01.2026, recording the request of the plaintiffs, the matter stood adjourned to 11.02.2026 and thereafter, the matter came to be listed only on 05.
06.
which date, there has been no representation on the side of the plaintiffs. Hence, the matter stood listed today under the caption for dismissal.
2. Even today, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs is not present when it was initially called and the matter was directed to be taken up after the lunch receipt. Even at this time, even the counsel for the plaintiffs was absent. The counsel for the plaintiffs, as recorded in various orders, which had been briefly stated above would indate that the plaintiffs are not interested in prosecuting the lis, which had been initiated two decades ago.
3. As such, the Civil Suit stands dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as to costs.
12-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Maya
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
Maya Dated : 12-06-2026