T.Ravindran v. V.Natarajan,

S.A.(MD)NO.914 OF 2014 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.06.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN S.A.(MD)No.914 of 2014 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014 T.Ravindran, Proprietor of Jeyasakthi Modern Rice Mill, Kariamanickam Road, Samayapuram, Manachanallur Taluk, Trichy.

... Appellant /Appellant/ Defendant Vs.

V.Natarajan ... Respondent/Respondent/ Plaintiff Prayer: Second appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the Judgment and Decree dated 09.01.2014 made in A.S.No.24 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Karur, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 28.02.2013 made in O.S.No.127 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Karur.

For Appellant : Mr.P.Thiagarajan For Respondent : Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth, for Mr.M.Bindran.

J U D G M E N T

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

2. The unsuccessful defendant in O.S.No.127 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Karur, is the appellant in this second appeal.

3. The respondent herein Thiru.V.Natarajan filed the said suit for recovering a sum of Rs.4,56,680/- from the appellant towards supply of gunny bags said to have been made by him in November 2009. The defendant categorically denied having received any such goods from the plaintiff. The pre-suit notice issued by the plaintiff was also replied by the appellant. However, the suit came to be decreed as prayed for vide judgment and decree dated 28.02.2013. A.S.No.24 of 2013 filed by the appellant before the District Court, Karur, was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 09.01.2014. Questioning the same, this second appeal came to be filed.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

S.A.(MD)NO.914 OF 2014

4. This Court had granted interim order in favour of the appellant on condition that the appellant deposits 50% of the decretal amount. The said amount deposited by the appellant is said to be lying to the credit of the suit. The appellant has no objection for the respondent to withdraw the same towards full and final settlement of the suit claim.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent on instructions informed the Court that the offer made by the appellant is acceptable and that he would withdraw 50% of the decretal amount deposited by the appellant together with accrued interest towards the full satisfaction of the suit claim. On such withdrawal, the respondent will not have any further claim against the appellant herein. Since consensus has been reached between the parties herein, the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are accordingly modified and this second appeal is disposed of. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has also filed a compromise memo dated 16.06.2021 to this effect. The said compromise memo will form part of the order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-III) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) PMU ENCL.: XEROX COPY OF JOINT COMPROMISE MEMO.

Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

To:

1. The Principal District Judge, Karur.

2. The Principal Subordinate Judge, Karur.

3. The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai(2 COPIES) +1 CC to M/s.P.THIYAGARJAN, Advocate ( SR-19575[F] dated 18/06/2021 ) S.A.(MD)No.914 of 2014 16.06.2021 kmk(CO) TR(01.07.2021) 2P 6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2