← Library
Madras High CourtCMP(MD)/8607/2019dismissed

Madasamy Mudaliar v. Arockiasamy(Died) Mariya Natchathram,

2023-06-12Honourable Mr Justice C. Saravanan6 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12.06.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN in C.R.P.(MD) SR.No.43685 of 2015 Madasamy Mudhaliar ... Petitioner Vs.

Arockiasamy (Died) 1.Mariya Natchathram 2.Amulraj Divyanathan (Died) 3.Irudhayamary 4.Sagayanadhan 5.Lordhu 6.Jebamalai 7.Soosai 8.Jerald 9.Jerald Raja 10.Alphonse Page No. 1 of 6

11.Josbin 12.Gobi 13.Anthonisamy 14.Yesudhoss 15.Sandhiyagu Soosayammal (Died) 16.Ukkiramary alias Rojali 17.Savariraj 18.Lourdhusamy 19.Selvaraj 20.Violet Rani 21.Sebastin 22.Niyol 23.Berland 24.Raju 25.Arockiamary 26.Sandhiyagu 27.Adaikalamary 28.Sesharaj Page No. 2 of 6

29.Sagayaraj 30.Paulraj 31.Minor Packiaraj rep. By his mother and natural guardian 27th respondent 32.Elisabeth Rani 33.Mardhal 34.Amalorpavamary 35.Sebastin 36.Gunaseeli 37.Adaikalamary 38.Arumugam 39.Jeyam 40.Selvi ... Respondents RR1 to 16, 18, 19 & 23 to 29 - Exparte RR20, 21, 22, 30 33 & 39 - Dismissed Prayer in C.M.P.: Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 757 days in filing the present Civil Revision Petition.

Prayer in C.R.P.: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated Page No. 3 of 6

19.03.2013 made in I.A.No.237 of 2012 in I.A.No.229 of 2009 in A.S.SR.No.1442 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Court, Trichy.

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Maria Roseline For RR17, 32, 34, 40 : No appearance

O R D E R

When this case is taken up for hearing, Mr.J.Maria Roseline, the learned counsel on record for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has withdrawn the vakalat and to that effect, a Memo has been filed by the learned counsel on record for the petitioner. However, on perusing the Memo, it is noticed that the Memo has only been filed on 19.11.2019, wherein, it has been stated as follows:-

1. It is respectfully submitted that as per order of this Hon'ble Court dated 27.09.2019, notice was taken to the contesting respondents and as far as notice regarding respondents 35 to 38, as per cause list endorsement, the notice was returned as "Deceased". As per instruction received from the petitioner R36 Gunaseeli is alive. In fact the private notice sent to the Respondent 36 was returned as "No such Addressee". It is therefore just and necessary that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to order fresh notice to respondent 36.

Page No. 4 of 6

2. As far as respondent 35 i.e. Sebastin (Died) is concerned, he is already represented by his legal heir i.e. his daughter in law R36.

3. As far as respondents 37 & 38 are concerned, they are husband and wife and the notice to the said respondents has been returned as "Deceased". The legal heirs of the respondents 37 & 38 are as follows:- i. Raja, Grandson of Arumugam through his son (late) Chandru ii. Ravi Son of (late) Arumugam The above details may be recorded and the petitioner be kindly permitted to take steps as far as deceased respondents 37 & 38 This humble memo may be recorded to that effect.

Dated at Madurai on this the 19th day of November, 2019.

2. Therefore, the above Memo cannot be taken on record for withdrawal of vakalat. However, on perusing the court records, it is noticed that this Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to condone the delay of 757 days in filing the present Civil Revision Petition and is coming up for hearing regularly. For taking steps, at request of the learned counsel on record for the petitioner, this case was adjourned from time to time.

Page No. 5 of 6

C.SARAVANAN, J.

jen

3. The Civil Revision Petition is also at the S.R. stage since 2015. Therefore, the petitioner appears to be not interested in pursuing the remedy in the Civil Revision Petition as till date no steps have been taken to serve notice on the contesting respondents. Today also, several attempts were made stating that the petitioner has withdrawn the vakalat. There is no excuse for keeping the proceedings pending for almost 8 years without taking steps.

4. Therefore, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition is also dismissed at the S.R. stage. No cost.

12.06.2023 Internet: Yes/No Index: Yes/ No jen To The Principal District Court, Trichy.

in C.R.P.(MD) SR.No.43685 of 2015 Page No. 6 of 6