Madras High CourtCMP(MD)/7376/2022dismissed

M. Sasikumar, v. V. Rathinasekar,

2022-08-25Honourable Mr Justice P. Velmurugan2 pages

CMP(MD). No.7376 of 2022 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Thursday, the Twenty Fifth day of August Two Thousand and Twenty Two PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice P.VELMURUGAN CMP(MD). No.7376 of 2022 in AS(MD).No. 22 of 2011

1. M. Sasikumar

2. M. Sakthivel

3. M.Thankayyan ... Petitioners/Appellants Vs 1 V. Rathinasekar 2 R. Gomathy ... Respondents/Respondents Prayer in CMP(MD). No.7376 of 2022:- This Petition filed under Order 41 Rule 19 of C.P.C., praying this Court to restore the case in A.S.(MD). No. 22 of 2011 dated 04.07.2022.

Prayer in AS(MD). No. 22 of 2011 :

This Appeal Suit filed Under Section 96 of C.P.C., praying this Court to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 30.07.2010 passed in O.S. No. 25 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Trichy and allow this appeal.

ORDER:- This Petition coming on for hearing on this day and upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. T.Lenin Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioners and of Mr. D. Nallathambi, Advocate for the respondents, this Court made the following order:

The main appeal is pending from the year 2011 onwards. When the appeal was listed on 04.07.2022 since the appellant counsel was not ready to argue the appeal, the appeal was dismissed for nonprosecution. Now, the appellant has filed the present petition to set aside the dismissal order dated 04.07.2022 and to restore the appeal on file.

2. Today when the petition is came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner is not ready to argue the appeal. Though the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution since the appellant was not ready to argue the appeal, even today, when the petition to restore the appeal came up for hearing, today also, the learned counsel is not ready to argue the appeal. Without making himself ready to argue the appeal, how the learned counsel has filed the petition to restore the appeal and what is the reason for filing the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/2

CMP(MD). No.7376 of 2022 petition to restore the appeal. It clearly shows that the petition has not been filed for bonafide reason and it is filed only to keep the appeal pending for years together. Since the appeal is already dismissed for non-prosecution, when the petition is filed, this Court is also inclined to hear the appeal, however, the appellant is not ready to prosecute the appeal and hence, there is no necessity to allow the petition to restore the appeal and not keeping the appeal decades together. Already one decade has been completed and till date the appellant is not ready to argue the appeal and allowed the matter for dismissal. For the reasons stated above, this Court is not inclined to allow the petition to restore the appeal since the appellant is not ready to argue the appeal even today.

3. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-I) // True Copy // /09/2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To

1. The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Trichy.

2. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. (2 COPIES) + 1 cc to Mr. D. Nallathambi, Advocate, Sr. No. 40857 ORDER DATED : 25/08/2022 ==========================

ORDER

========================== CMP(MD). No.7376 of 2022 in AS(MD).No. 22 of 2011 Giving direction and etc.

as stated within.

RD(07/09/2022) 2P 5C https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/2