Shahin Begum v. L.Velayudham

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 19.07.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN C.S.No.143 of 2020 and O.A.Nos.197 & 198 of 2020 & 7 of 2021 and A.Nos.3090 of 2020 and 39 & 40 of 2021 and 320 to 323 of 2021 Shahin Begum ... Plaintiff Vs.

1.L.Velayudham 2.Almaa Herbal Nature Private Limited, Rep by its Director, L.Velayudham.

3.Thurai Nagarajan 4.Thanigaivelan 5.V.Kannan 6.Dhanalakshmi 7.Dr.Meera 8.Arun Kumar 9.Siddha Food Tech, Rep by its Proprietor, L.Velayudham.

... Defendants PRAYER: Civil Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules, r/w Order VII Rule 1 of CPC, to grant judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendants jointly and severally (a) declaring that the plaintiff and the first defendant are the absolute owners of the properties more fully described in the schedule A, B, C, D & E below and

the plaintiff is entitled to 50% share on the properties in the name of 1st defendant, more fully described Schedule A, B, C, D & E hereto and also 50% right and share on all the business carried on more fully described List of Business which were purchased from and out of income from the companies and all stands in the name of the 1st defendant or in his nominee or in any other names or in the name of third parties and for a consequential injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants, sub-ordinates or anybody claiming under or through them from alienating or interfering with the properties more fully described in the schedule (b) to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants, sub-ordinates or anybody claiming under or through them from interfering with the administration of the plaintiff in all the companies described in the schedule run by the first defendant © to grant cost of this suit and to grant any such further or other reliefs.

For Plaintiff : Mr.G.Veerabhadran For Defendants : Mr.Adinarayana Rao for D1 Mr.C.

JUDGMENT

The suit came up for consideration on 12.07.2024 and on that date, this Court has passed the following order:

"The learned counsel for the plaintiff made the following endorsement:

"The suit is settled out of Court through mediation and hence not pressed'."

2. It is seen that issues have not been framed and the parties had been relegated to the mediation process and during that process, there has been a settlement among the parties. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for refund of Court fees. The Registry may refund the Court fees to the plaintiff or to the counsel for the plaintiff on proper identification and undertaking. However, all the pending applications have not been listed in the cause list. The Registry may list all the pending applications in the cause list for the hearing date, 19.07.2024."

2. Today all the applications are listed.

3. In view of the fact that the suit had been settled out of Court through mediation, the suit is dismissed as settled out of Court. No costs. Consequently, connected applications are also closed. The plaintiff is entitled to refund of Court fee in accordance with the rules. The Registry

may refund the same either to the learned counsel for the plaintiff or to the plaintiff after obtaining proper acknowledgment. 19.07.2024 Index :Yes/No Internet: Yes/No vkr

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.

vkr C.S.No.143 of 2020 and O.A.Nos.197 & 198 of 2020 & 7 of 2021 and A.Nos.3090 of 2020 and 39 & 40 of 2021 and 320 to 323 of 2021 19.07.2024