Sagadevan vs Kannan - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1776166
CourtChennai High Court
Decided OnApr-30-2025
Case NumberCMP/3539/2021
JudgeHonourable Mr Justice a.a.Nakkiran
AppellantSagadevan
RespondentKannan
Excerpt:
in the high court of judicature at madrasdated: 24-02-2026coramthe hon'ble mrs.justice t.v.thamilselvi cmp no. 3539 of 2021 and sa no. 55 of 20211. sagadevan2. arjunan3. deivanai4. indra gandhi5. vijayalakshmi6. kalaivani ..appellant(s) vs1. kannan2. arumugam3. malarkodi4. mallika5. palaniammal..respondent(s) prayer in cmp no. 3539 of 2021 to decree the suit o.s.no.458 of 2005 on the file of the court of additional district munsif, gingee as per the admission made by the respondents/defendants in their written statement especially in paragraphs 5 to 9 filed in o.s.no.458 of 2005. prayer in sa no. 55 of 2021 second appeal filed under sec.100 of c.p.c., praying to set aside thejudgment and decree passed in as.no.11/2015 dt 12/02/2019 on the file ofsub judge at gingee confirming the judgement and decree dated 28.04.2015 made in os no.458/2005 on the file of additional district munsif, gingee. for appellant(s): mr.t.dhanasekaran for respondent(s): no appearanceorderthis civil miscellaneous petition has been filed seeking to decree the suit in o.s.no.458 of 2005 on the file of additional district munsif, gingee as per the admission made by the respondents/defendants in their written statement especially in paragraphs 5 to 9 filed in o.s.no.458 of 2005.2. today, when the matter taken up for hearing, it is brought to theknowledge of this court that the above petition was closed by this court on 30.04.2025 without hearing the petitioners/appellants, but the prayer in that petition reveals that the petitioners/appellants wanted to decree the suit based on the admission made by the respondents/defendants in the written statement, which requires detailed enquiry. however, this court had closed the above petition without considering the prayer sought in the petition. in such circumstances, the earlier order dated 30.04.2025 passed by this court is recalled.3. there is no representation on the side of respondents.4. post the matter on 23.03.2026 along with the petition in c.m.p.no.3539 of 2021. rpp to1. the additional district munsif, gingee.2. the subordinate judge, gingee.3. the section officer, vr section, madras high court.t.v.thamilselvi, j.rpp c.m.p.no. 3539 of 2021 in s.a. no. 55 of 2021
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24-02-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI CMP No. 3539 of 2021 AND SA NO. 55 OF 2021

1. Sagadevan

2. Arjunan

3. Deivanai

4. Indra Gandhi

5. Vijayalakshmi

6. Kalaivani ..Appellant(s) Vs

1. Kannan

2. Arumugam

3. Malarkodi

4. Mallika

5. Palaniammal

..Respondent(s) PRAYER IN CMP No. 3539 of 2021 To decree the suit O.S.No.458 of 2005 on the file of the court of Additional District Munsif, Gingee as per the admission made by the respondents/defendants in their written statement especially in paragraphs 5 to 9 filed in O.S.No.458 of 2005. PRAYER IN SA No. 55 of 2021 Second Appeal filed under Sec.100 of C.P.C., praying to set aside the

judgment and decree passed in AS.No.11/2015 dt 12/02/2019 on the file of

Sub Judge at Gingee confirming the judgement and decree dated 28.04.2015 made in OS No.458/2005 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Gingee. For Appellant(s): Mr.T.Dhanasekaran For Respondent(s): No Appearance

ORDER

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking to decree the suit in O.S.No.458 of 2005 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Gingee as per the admission made by the respondents/defendants in their written statement especially in paragraphs 5 to 9 filed in O.S.No.458 of 2005.

2. Today, when the matter taken up for hearing, it is brought to the

knowledge of this Court that the above petition was closed by this court on 30.04.2025 without hearing the petitioners/appellants, but the prayer in that petition reveals that the petitioners/appellants wanted to decree the suit based on the admission made by the respondents/defendants in the written statement, which requires detailed enquiry. However, this Court had closed the above petition without considering the prayer sought in the petition. In such circumstances, the earlier order dated 30.04.2025 passed by this court is recalled.

3. There is no representation on the side of respondents.

4. Post the matter on 23.03.2026 along with the petition in C.M.P.No.3539 of 2021. rpp To

1. The Additional District Munsif, Gingee.

2. The Subordinate Judge, Gingee.

3. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court.

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

rpp C.M.P.No. 3539 of 2021 in S.A. No. 55 of 2021