High CourtsSingle Bench(2020) 01 MAD CK 0010

M.Saravanan vs S.Buvaneshwari Amma

Madras High Court · Decided on 3 January 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.M.Subramaniam, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.No. 15651 Of 2003 In Appeal Suits.No. 95426 Of 2002

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 270 words

S.M.Subramaniam, J

This Court passed an order on 11.12.2019 as follows:

1.

"The Miscellaneous petition is filed in the year 2003 seeking permission to the petitioner to file the Appeal Suit as informa pauperis against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.210 of 1999.

2.

Perusal of the case papers reveals that notice is yet to be served to the respondents. More than 16 years lapsed. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is given one more opportunity to comply with the service of notice and ascertain the present status, failing which appropriate orders will be passed.

3.

List this case under the caption 'for orders' on 19.12.2019."

2.

Again, an opportunity was given to the petitioner to take necessary steps and further orders were passed on 19.12.2019 and the same is as follows:

"The learned counsel for the appellants made a submission that he has taken Private Notice and awaiting for the acknowledgment.

2.

In order to provide one more opportunity, the case is directed to be listed on 03.01.2020 under the caption 'For orders'.

3.

In the event of not producing proof of service, appropriate orders would be passed."

3.

In spite of the opportunities provided to the petitioner to serve notice to the respondents, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner now made a submission that in spite of the efforts, they are unable to secure instructions from the petitioner, so as to proceed with the case. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner reported no instructions.

4.

Thus, the C.M.P.No.15651 of 2003 stands dismissed. Consequently, A.S.SR.No.95426 of 2002 is rejected at the SR Stage itself. No costs.